John Sickels BJ's Top 20

[Michael Bradley]

Also, JP tends to win a lot of his trades.

Especially when he trades for prospects. I mean, the Jays are going to have to figure out how many names they can actually fit on the Level of Excellence so that guys like Luke Prokopec, Jason Arnold, John-Ford Griffin, Jason Frasor, Eric Crozier, John Hattig, James Deshaines, Chad Ricketts, Chad Gaudin, Chad Beck, Brian Wolfe, Scott Wiggins, Trevor Lawhorn, etc, can get the type of recognition they deserve for their contributions to this franchise.

Yes, the above is sarcasm. Ricciardi did not "win" a lot of his trades. I actually can't think of one prospect he acquired in a trade that worked out (correct me if I am missing anyone). If he were as good with trading and drafting as you seem to suggest here, wouldn't the team be in better shape right now?

Sure, if you choose to conveniently focus on just prospects acquired. He also acquired Ted Lilly (All-star), Hinske (ROY), Lidle (career 111 ERA+ when acquired), Accardo, Frasor, Hillenbrand, Overbay, Tallet, Speier, Glaus, Rolen, and Scutaro through trades. Most of the failed prospects you mentioned came in salary dumps at the beginning of his run, which you can't realistically expect good prospects from, and it's not like great players were going the other way. Even in the Werth trade, he got Frasor. Bottom line, Ricciardi won just about every significant trade he made. If your criticism is that he didn't take enough risks, then I would agree with that.

That's false. Lopez for Jason Arnold was a talent trade as both were prospects at the time of the trade (Arnold retired at age 27 without setting foot in the Majors while Lopez made the AS team and remains a good regular at the MLB level). While Quantrill was apart of this trade, the Izturis/Prokopec swap was also a talent trade (Prokopec had a 68 ERA+ in Toronto and retired at age 25 while Izturis still starts at short at the MLB level). Phelps for Crozier was a talent trade. Werth for Frasor was as well, and so on. Koch was a salary dump, but Koch went on to have his best season ever in Oakland (Beane was able to flip him for Foulke on top of that) while the Jays got one good year out of Hinske and nothing after that. Ricciardi didn't get a single good prospect even in deadline deals for veterans. We were all sold a bill of goods on guys like Jason Arnold and Justin Miller without getting any type of results to justify it.

The trades you mentioned as "wins" are highly suspect. First off you say that we can't count the salary dump trades (Mondesi, Gonzalez, etc) because you can't expect a reasonable return in that scenario, but then boast Shea Hillenbrand (Arizona wanted to dump in favor of Chad Tracy), Marco Scutaro (arby eligible who Oakland wanted to move for salary purposes), and Cory Lidle (see Scutaro) as "wins" for Ricciardi even though the teams trading those players could not have expected reasonable offers either using that logic. Plus, I would hardly consider Lidle a win anyway since he had a horrific season in 2003 (82 ERA+ in 192 innings).

Ricciardi made some "win" trades (Lilly, Speier, Scutaro, Accardo, Tallet, Rolen to CIN), and some good talent swaps that could be argued in either direction (Glaus, Overbay), but to suggest that those were the norm is ridiculous. He hit on a few draft picks and made some good moves while he was here, but overall he was very average. If he inherited Ricky Romero as his #1 starter (like AA is) instead of Roy Halladay (like JP did), then all these "but they won 85 games in the best division in baseball" arguments would irrelevant.

Didn't mean to derail this into a JP thread, but AA having to trade his best players just to restock a system that is still probably average even after two big trades is a telling sign that the man AA is replacing wasn't doing a particularly good job.

[Hoopstarr]

Sure, if you choose to conveniently focus on just prospects acquired. He also acquired Ted Lilly (All-star), Hinske (ROY), Lidle (career 111 ERA+ when acquired), Accardo, Frasor, Hillenbrand, Overbay, Tallet, Speier, Glaus, Rolen, and Scutaro through trades. Most of the failed prospects you mentioned came in salary dumps at the beginning of his run, which you can't realistically expect good prospects from, and it's not like great players were going the other way. Even in the Werth trade, he got Frasor. Bottom line, Ricciardi won just about every significant trade he made. If your criticism is that he didn't take enough risks, then I would agree with that.

That's false. Lopez for Jason Arnold was a talent trade as both were prospects at the time of the trade (Arnold retired at age 27 without setting foot in the Majors while Lopez made the AS team and remains a good regular at the MLB level). While Quantrill was apart of this trade, the Izturis/Prokopec swap was also a talent trade (Prokopec had a 68 ERA+ in Toronto and retired at age 25 while Izturis still starts at short at the MLB level). Phelps for Crozier was a talent trade. Werth for Frasor was as well, and so on. Koch was a salary dump, but Koch went on to have his best season ever in Oakland (Beane was able to flip him for Foulke on top of that) while the Jays got one good year out of Hinske and nothing after that. Ricciardi didn't get a single good prospect even in deadline deals for veterans. We were all sold a bill of goods on guys like Jason Arnold and Justin Miller without getting any type of results to justify it.

The trades you mentioned as "wins" are highly suspect. First off you say that we can't count the salary dump trades (Mondesi, Gonzalez, etc) because you can't expect a reasonable return in that scenario, but then boast Shea Hillenbrand (Arizona wanted to dump in favor of Chad Tracy), Marco Scutaro (arby eligible who Oakland wanted to move for salary purposes), and Cory Lidle (see Scutaro) as "wins" for Ricciardi even though the teams trading those players could not have expected reasonable offers either using that logic. Plus, I would hardly consider Lidle a win anyway since he had a horrific season in 2003 (82 ERA+ in 192 innings).

Ricciardi made some "win" trades (Lilly, Speier, Scutaro, Accardo, Tallet, Rolen to CIN), and some good talent swaps that could be argued in either direction (Glaus, Overbay), but to suggest that those were the norm is ridiculous. He hit on a few draft picks and made some good moves while he was here, but overall he was very average. If he inherited Ricky Romero as his #1 starter (like AA is) instead of Roy Halladay (like JP did), then all these "but they won 85 games in the best division in baseball" arguments would irrelevant.

Didn't mean to derail this into a JP thread, but AA having to trade his best players just to restock a system that is still probably average even after two big trades is a telling sign that the man AA is replacing wasn't doing a particularly good job.

I think you're using a little too much 20/10 hindsight on some of those. Werth was blocked in the OF and they needed a RP. Both Frasor and Werth looked like good players and it was a fair trade. I remember the fan reaction being neutral at the time. Phelps wasn't really a talent trade because they said they were going to get whatever they could for him because they planned on non-tendering him anyway. And if we're going to use hindsight, it's not like Phelps came back to haunt them. Crozier was actually a decent prospect with potentially high reward, but they probably should've got more for Phelps.

I don't know why you keep insisting that Izturis is or ever was a good player. He has always been only slightly better than a John McDonald type, who would produce similarly in the NL with the same glove work. In return, they got the Dodgers' #5 and #10 prospects at the time in Prokopec and Ricketts.

Regarding salary dumps, trades are not a simple zero sum game when it comes to salary dumps. One team usually wins and the other neither wins nor loses. That's why the dumps of Quantrill, Mondesi, Fullmer, etc. were wins for the teams that got them but not necessarily losses for the Jays. Similarly, the Jays won the Hillenbrand trade but the D-backs didn't lose.

The one talent trade he definitively lost was the Lopez for Arnold swap. It didn't really make sense to give up on Lopez so soon with no SS in the pipeline. The Koch for Hinske one was a salary dump where the dumping team actually won, or at least came out even. Koch had a career year like you said, but so did Hinske. How is that a loss? It's no one else's fault but Hinske's that he fell in love with Doritos after the ROY season.

And you also don't like the Glaus-Hudson trade for some reason. I thought it was a great move to use a surplus asset in Hudson (with Hill coming up) to fill two big needs at 3B and middle order power. The Overbay trade for Bush was also a win. Bush had a good start with the Jays but then got figured out and he's a 4/5 starter in the NL who would get romped in the AL East.

[Schad]

Unless I'm very much mistaken, Werth and Phelps weren't talent-for-talent trades...they were deals made because we had run out of options on the players.

[Michael Bradley]

I think you're using a little too much 20/10 hindsight on some of those. Werth was blocked in the OF and they needed a RP. Both Frasor and Werth looked like good players and it was a fair trade. I remember the fan reaction being neutral at the time. Phelps wasn't really a talent trade because they said they were going to get whatever they could for him because they planned on non-tendering him anyway. And if we're going to use hindsight, it's not like Phelps came back to haunt them. Crozier was actually a decent prospect with potentially high reward, but they probably should've got more for Phelps.

I don't know why you keep insisting that Izturis is or ever was a good player. He has always been only slightly better than a John McDonald type, who would produce similarly in the NL with the same glove work. In return, they got the Dodgers' #5 and #10 prospects at the time in Prokopec and Ricketts.

Regarding salary dumps, trades are not a simple zero sum game when it comes to salary dumps. One team usually wins and the other neither wins nor loses. That's why the dumps of Quantrill, Mondesi, Fullmer, etc. were wins for the teams that got them but not necessarily losses for the Jays. Similarly, the Jays won the Hillenbrand trade but the D-backs didn't lose.

The one talent trade he definitively lost was the Lopez for Arnold swap. It didn't really make sense to give up on Lopez so soon with no SS in the pipeline. The Koch for Hinske one was a salary dump where the dumping team actually won, or at least came out even. Koch had a career year like you said, but so did Hinske. How is that a loss? It's no one else's fault but Hinske's that he fell in love with Doritos after the ROY season.

And you also don't like the Glaus-Hudson trade for some reason. I thought it was a great move to use a surplus asset in Hudson (with Hill coming up) to fill two big needs at 3B and middle order power. The Overbay trade for Bush was also a win. Bush had a good start with the Jays but then got figured out and he's a 4/5 starter in the NL who would get romped in the AL East.

Werth was out of options, but he was not blocked and he should have made the team out of ST. Rios was not near ready yet and I believe Gross was fighting a shoulder injury that limited him to DH duty that year. The Jays were running an outfield of Catalanotto, Wells, and Johnson in 2004. Werth could have been used as the 4th OF or platoon with Cat. Instead, the team decided to let Simon Pond win that roster spot. Pond was soon demoted, Rios rushed to the big leagues, and Dave Berg was used in the OF due to lack of other options. Stupid, short-sighted, and selling low.

Josh Phelps was arbitration eligible, and JP being so short-sighted and reactionary put more emphasis on Phelps’ 2004 season than the rest of his career, so the trade was made with Cleveland for Crozier. Phelps was a much better prospect than Crozier. Wasn’t even close actually. I still don’t know why some AL team doesn’t take a chance with Phelps at DH. He is 31 now, but still might have some potential. His OPS+ per year when given at least 150 at bats were 138, 113, 92, 100, and 135. He still had some prospect luster at age 26 when he was traded. Again, an example of selling low, and another example of a trade that paid absolutely no dividends.

Prokopec was an overrated prospect even at the time. When the trade happened, the first thing that jumped out at me was how bad Prokopec was at giving up the long ball. This was a guy whose home ballpark was an extreme pitchers park yet had a HR/9 rate of 1.8 (27 HR in 138 IP) and a K/9 under 6.00. What happened in the American League when his home ballpark was Skydome was not surprising, at least to me. Injuries ended his career (same with Ricketts) but that just made the deal worse. Izturis was not a great prospect either, but he was a plus defender at short who had value (was traded for Greg Maddux straight up 4 years after the initial trade...granted a slightly washed up Greg Maddux). Hell, Izturis still starts at short for teams. How was that a "win"?

Hinske/Koch was not a win because the Jays gave up the better player and only got one good year out of the prospect they got back. The A's were able to maximize their asset (turned Koch into Foulke) while the Jays were stuck with an albatross for a few years (thanks to JP giving him an extension after one season).

Regarding Hudson/Glaus and Bush/Overbay, like I said it can be argued either way. Looking at WAR (which I know many here like) Glaus beat Hudson in 2006, but Hudson beat Glaus in 2007, and Glaus beat Rolen in 2008. Bush when he is a league average innings eater (2006/2008) is more value than a platoon 1B, IMO. Of course, when Bush is terrible (2007/2009), that ceases to matter. That's not even factoring cost. Again, two ways to look at it.

Again, where does any of this indicate that Ricciardi "wins" most of his deals? Even if you count Glaus and Overbay as wins, he still gave up good players for them. He never acquired a single prospect in a trade that panned out. He never stole a player from another team, outside of Lilly/Kielty. Ricciardi and "good trader" should not be put together. He never made a truly bad trade, but never made a great one either (great meaning acquiring a star). Everything about him, right down to fear of taking risks, screams "average".

[Schad]

Again, where does any of this indicate that Ricciardi "wins" most of his deals? Even if you count Glaus and Overbay as wins, he still gave up good players for them. He never acquired a single prospect in a trade that panned out. He never stole a player from another team, outside of Lilly/Kielty. Ricciardi and "good trader" should not be put together. He never made a truly bad trade, but never made a great one either (great meaning acquiring a star). Everything about him, right down to fear of taking risks, screams "average".

I agree with this; JP didn't do terribly overall, but with the exception of the Koch/Hinske trade and the BJ/Burnett/Overbay/Rolen off-season, he wasn't particularly proactive. There were times when that was helpful (he certainly had Beane's sensibilities when it came to hanging on to marginal comp-eligible free agents 'til they hit free agency), but he might have taken the cautious route far too often, in trades and in the draft pre-'06.

[Hoopstarr]

Glaus, the 2002 WS MVP, wasn't a star? (By the way, using WAR to judge that trade is not fair because there was also the intangible value of filling the hole at cleanup and 3B, which more than made up for it). Tallet, Scutaro, Accardo, Hillenbrand, Speier, and J-Mac weren't definitive "steals"? We could go back and forth on this for days, but it's evident that you want to use a ton of hindsight to frame every move negatively. There are some truly awful GMs in the majors. Compare his record with the others who were in much easier situations and you'll see he was above average. Yes he didn't take enough risks, but this was partly because of Rogers' implicit mandate to maintain a stable team with stable profits.

[augustine]

JP, is that you?

[The Flying Gent]

Glaus, the 2002 WS MVP, wasn't a star? (By the way, using WAR to judge that trade is not fair because there was also the intangible value of filling the hole at cleanup and 3B, which more than made up for it). Tallet, Scutaro, Accardo, Hillenbrand, Speier, and J-Mac weren't definitive "steals"? We could go back and forth on this for days, but it's evident that you want to use a ton of hindsight to frame every move negatively. There are some truly awful GMs in the majors. Compare his record with the others who were in much easier situations and you'll see he was above average. Yes he didn't take enough risks, but this was partly because of Rogers' implicit mandate to maintain a stable team with stable profits.

[citation needed]

[northernpuppy]

You can always find hitters. While the hitting future may be "thin", the pitching depth is key. IMO, pitching is what you focus on in your system. Whether its via FA or trades, you can also grow OF's and Corner infielders. Good contact middle infielders and C's are the position players you develop in the farm.

[Michael Bradley]

Glaus, the 2002 WS MVP, wasn't a star? (By the way, using WAR to judge that trade is not fair because there was also the intangible value of filling the hole at cleanup and 3B, which more than made up for it). Tallet, Scutaro, Accardo, Hillenbrand, Speier, and J-Mac weren't definitive "steals"? We could go back and forth on this for days, but it's evident that you want to use a ton of hindsight to frame every move negatively. There are some truly awful GMs in the majors. Compare his record with the others who were in much easier situations and you'll see he was above average. Yes he didn't take enough risks, but this was partly because of Rogers' implicit mandate to maintain a stable team with stable profits.

You keep mentioning hindsight as if looking back on how the deals turned out is some sort of ploy to make Ricciardi look bad. How else do you look back on the value of a trade? Ask your boss at work whether he looks at a decision you made based on its reasoning at the time or how it played out in the end, and I guarantee you it will be the latter. If all of JP's moves look worse in hindsight, when do you start noticing the trend rather than blaming others for using hindsight? Not to mention many of JP's moves looked bad even at the time.

You mention Tallet, Scutaro, Accardo, Hillenbrand, Speier, and J-Mac as his "steals", but really, that's three relievers, a short-stop who had one great year, and a back-up SS who can't hit. How does that list differ from any other GM who traded for a reliever that turned out to be productive? Or a back-up infielder? Because he "won" those trades, that makes the Rolen deal the norm as far as his trading ability? If Stewart and Roenicke pan out, I'd consider that trade the biggest outlier in Ricciardi's history. As I said before, he has never acquired a legit prospect in a trade that panned out (unless you want to count Hinske's rookie year).

And I don't know how Rogers prevented him for taking risks in trades based on a "mandate to maintain a stable team". In a span of five seasons, the Jays lost Carlos Delgado, Kelvim Escobar, Ted Lilly, Justin Speier, Frank Catalanotto, and AJ Burnett without getting a single MLB player out of it other than Adam Lind (who was compensation for losing Escobar). Was it Rogers that forced Ricciardi to take draft picks rather than trade those players? Why would Rogers be in favor of not getting any immediate return on departing players? Ownership didn't do anything to prevent Ricciardi from making trades, unless it involved taking salary which the Jays couldn't do for the first few years of JP's tenure. The only thing Rogers did wrong was keep JP on board for as long as they did. I think ending ties after 2007 was the right way to go.

[Schad]

And I don't know how Rogers prevented him for taking risks in trades based on a "mandate to maintain a stable team". In a span of five seasons, the Jays lost Carlos Delgado, Kelvim Escobar, Ted Lilly, Justin Speier, Frank Catalanotto, and AJ Burnett without getting a single MLB player out of it other than Adam Lind (who was compensation for losing Escobar).

As you mentioned, Lind was compensation for Escobar...so too was Zach Jackson, who was a large component of the Overbay deal.

Kevin Ahrens and Justin Jackson were compensation for Catalanotto...neither of whom have panned out at this point, but we got the 16th and 45th picks for Frank freakin' Catalanotto.

Brett Cecil was compensation for Justin Speier, as was Eric Eiland, who fairly blows.

Trystan Magnuson, taken because he was cheap as dirt to sign, was compensation for Ted Lilly.

Jake Marisnick and a player to be determined this summer comprises the compensation for AJ Burnett.


We can both agree that getting nothing for Delgado was awful. And it's a little too soon to evaluate Burnett, let alone the kiddies. Beyond that, though, two middle-of-the-rotation starters, an out-of-nowhere reliever (himself acquired for Mark Hendrickson), and a 32 year old slap-hitter turned into:

Our best hitter, a pitching prospect who was highly touted by BA and made the majors at 22, three high picks that have fallen flat on their faces but still have a shot, and a pretty uninspiring kid with a chance to be a middle reliever.. Sure, none of them helped short-term, but I'll take that return.

[Michael Bradley]

We had the best pitcher in baseball in his prime and continued to lose talent for draft picks. That is a pretty bad strategy in the AL East. How can a team replenish its Major League talent base that way, unless they were drafting at a superior rate (which the Jays were not)? Sure Adam Lind panned out, but by the time he did, Halladay had already requested a trade. It was foolish. Either try to retain those guys or trade them. There was no reason to keep Lilly (for example) if he was going to be a Type B free agent, and by the time Ahrens and Jackson pan out, if they ever do, Halladay will be in his 3rd or 4th year in Philadelphia. Wasted opportunities.

Overall, I think the Jays did horribly in those deals. Sure Escobar turned into Lind eventually, but that's one hit over a five year period. The Jays can now afford to let FA's go for draft picks because they are going to suck anyway, but back when they had an in-prime Halladay, it was a horrible strategy.

[kelso]

I'm not nearly as knowledgeable with respect to the details as you both have been in this thread, but if I poke my head above the trees and look at the big picture, in 8 years JP accomplished nothing. We eroded our scouting base, lost major league players for nothing, chased away one of the greatest players in franchise history (Delgado) and never replaced him, drafted poorly and even when we drafted players we weren't able to sign all of them. I recognize we play in the Al East and we have to compete with the Yankees and Red Sox, but we now are falling behind the Rays and the Orioles as well.

Bobby Kielty for Ted Lilly was a good deal though- I'll give him that .

[-MetA4-]

and even when we drafted players we weren't able to sign all of them.

Last year was the first time we had ever blown a draft under JP because of signability. Before that were were one of the best - if not THE best - in gauging signability and getting players signed.

[kelso]

and even when we drafted players we weren't able to sign all of them.

Last year was the first time we had ever blown a draft under JP because of signability. Before that were were one of the best - if not THE best - in gauging signability and getting players signed.

Thats deceiving because they would only draft players we thought we had a good chance to sign, not the best available players. There is a difference IMO. You're right though about last year being the worst year, but it was really bad.

[Hoopstarr]

The problem with saying "he never got any steals" or "he never acquired a good prospect that panned out" is that it assumes other GMs are doing it left and right like it's nothing. These are rare occurrences and a handful of notable ones around the league set the bar in people's minds. This is why I said to compare the records for context.

For example, let's take a look at Theo Epstein's record with the benefit of hindsight. He is considered by many to be a top 5 GM, if not the best in the business: http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2008/06/g ... ist-1.html

Do you see any steals there? Prospects that panned out? Talent trades won? He lost Joel Piniero, Freddy Sanchez, Mike Gonzalez, David Aardsma, Bronson Arroyo, David Murphy, Josh Bard, Cla Meredith, Josh Hancock, John Hattig, and other good players/prospects for basically nothing. His trade wins consist of stealing Schilling from Arizona (they wanted to lower payroll and Schilling's no-trade clause forced their hand), a good stretch of relief pitching from Byung-Hyung Kim, a great half season from Orlando Cabrera who turned into Ellsbury through compensation, and that's it. Prospects that panned out? Willy Mo Pena (for Arroyo) is the only that has had a modicum of success so far, and he flopped after a season. JP's records looks damn good in comparison.

Where Theo made up for it was well-spent money. A huge part of their success was the signing of Ortiz off the scrap heap. Others include Arroyo, Dice-K, and JD Drew. Of course, it helps to have a **** ton of money when you sign those guys and the leeway to get some of them wrong (Clement, Lugo, Foulke) and still spend more. Inheriting Pedro Martinez (one of the best pitchers ever) and Manny Ramirez (one of the best hitters ever) also helps. When he took a leave of absence after 2005, the replacement GMs traded for Beckett and Lowell, setting the table for another WS win.

It's even arguable whether Epstein drafted better than Ricciardi.

Epstein (2003 on): Papelbon, Pedroia, Meredith, Ellsbury, Buccholz, Lowrie, Daniel Bard, and Masterson. Some of these were signed for over slot price.
Ricciardi (2002 on): Adams, Bush, Hill, Marcum, Purcey, Lind, Janssen, Litsch, Romero, Snider, Cecil, and Rzep.

I'm probably taking Ricciardi's group, although Epstein has better prospects left in the minors with and Casey Kelly, Ryan Westmoreland, Lars Anderson, Josh Reddick, etc.

Steals of prospects and consistently good trade records just aren't as widespread as you make it out to be. JP's steal of Lilly alone is more than what most GMs accomplish. There are several valid complaints about JP's tenure (poor risk-taking, not taking HSers earlier on, not spending well, PR skills), but his trade record is well above average compared to other GMs.

[Michael Bradley]

I never said stealing prospects was the only way to make good trades. Getting value, whether it is equal or better, is more important. Ricciardi's trade history is uninspiring in that regard. He made bad trades, he made decent trades, but ultimately nothing exceptional in either direction. How does that equate to "always winning trades"? He pretty much missed on every single prospect he ever acquired, whether they were highly rated or not. His veteran moves were better, but for the most part were so insignificant in the long run (middle relievers, bench players, etc) that it hardly shows trading prowess. I would say his bad/insignificant far outweighed his good when it comes to trading. When John McDonald is a "win" trade, that just about sums it up.

Again, if Stewart and/or Roenicke pan out, they will be the exception in JPR's history, not the norm. And maybe JP's history doesn't look disasterous because he lacked any risk taking. His moves were generally so safe that neither the risk/reward nor floor/ceiling were anything to get worked up about. People who are satisfied with being average generally like to minimize risk to avoid the worst extreme (being bad), even if it means avoidng the best extreme (being great) at the same time. He was one of those types. AA, at least from what I have seen in his two big trades so far, seems to be the opposite.

I would take many GM's over Ricciardi. He wasn't a bad GM, but not a good one either.

[-MetA4-]

Thats deceiving because they would only draft players we thought we had a good chance to sign, not the best available players. There is a difference IMO. You're right though about last year being the worst year, but it was really bad.

No one simply drafts the "best available players", so no, there really isn't a difference. Scouting signability is as much a part of amateur scouting as finding out who can throw the best curveball is.

Look at the 2008 draft for proof:

Kenny Wilson in 2nd round - we did the research and knew he would sign quickly and for slot.
Mark Sobolewski in 4th round - draft eligible Sophomore, was perceived to have a high asking price but we got it done for around slot.
Pastornicky and Brisker (5th/6th round) - both HS kids that we had no difficulty signing to slot.
Eric Thames (7th round) - 2nd/3rd round talent who got hurt his JR year, we got him signed.