Sometimes, even a GM gets it right...

Discussing the baseball draft, yesterday, I responded to someone's question over whether the Red Sox would "draft for need" or "take the best player available" with the following:

It's hard to see any reason to think that "drafting for need" would not be utter idiocy on the part of a Major League baseball team. Whoever you draft is at least three years away from making an impact at the Major League level and most of your roster will turn over in three-four years, meaning that whatever your current needs are, they're likely to be very different when whoever you draft reaches the Majors. And, of course, whoever you draft is unlikely to ever make an impact in the Majors anyway.

The only sensible draft strategy is to take the best player available. Period. If you end up with a glut at some position, you make trades to shore up weaknesses. But you don't draft a catcher over a superior prospect in the outfield because you need a catcher today. Taking the player you project to have the best career, regardless of position, is the only strategy that makes sense.

In this morning's Boston Globe, Theo Epstein agrees with me:

You certainly never draft for need.