I took over a progressive team a few years ago. It was on the south side of good. Sold off most assets and ended up with the 1st pick in the 86 draft. Maddux or Bonds...? Looking for some feedback! What do you all think?

It's a 20 team league. I have decent SP and OF innings for awhile. My window really opens in about '88.

I'm a Giants fan and Bonds is my boy... I like Maddux too though. I'm leaning towards Maddux. I want to win some chips. Seems like an ace in the postseason always trumps a big bat.

My mind is not made up... Curious to hear some thoughts... Who you got? Maddux or Bonds? Bonds or Maddux?

Bonds wins the career Wins Above Replacement 162-105, but Maddux is going to be outstanding in a progressive. His 105 is 8th all time for pitchers, Bonds is #1 for position players.

Here's a thought. Ask the owner of the #2 pick what he'd be willing to give to trade up...

The '87 draft is thin on quality pitching. You would do well to get what you can in '86, or get better positioning for '88...or both. Rooskie has built lists with all the available rookies for each draft class(Everyone should thank Russell for that), they are worth your time to study them...

I would take Maddux. There are plenty of corner outfielders that can perform at a high level, but how many pitchers in that era can even come close to Maddux's production both in peak and quality season? Pedro hits the peak, but really only had a handful of good seasons, Clemens/Johnson have lots of good seasons, but their peaks aren't at high as Maddux.

As for Bonds, there are lots of solid outfielders you can find along the way, probably a fairly easy position to mix and match or a find a stop gap along the way.
If it's a DH league that helps Bonds a bit since his later years were rather lacking in the field.

Maddux will give you 2 years where he's head and shoulders the best, about 4-5 more years where he'll be an ace, and another 5-6 years where he'll be a solid middle of the rotation guy. Even in his later years he'll probably at least be an ok 4th/5th starter.

Bonds gives you 4 OMG years, 6 more where he'll be in the MVP conversation, and 4-5 more solid seasons.

The tie breaker for me though would be roster flexibility. You can never have too many quality SPs, if in 3-4 years you're in a position to get another top starter, you're not going to regret taking Maddux, but if another left fielder comes along, it won't be so easy to have him and Bonds in the same outfield.

there is nothing better than long term excellent pitching in a progressive

but bonds makes it a helluva choice

what i might do is try to parlay the pick into three other very good decade-plus players

they're both so good I would just pick the player you'd have more fun managing for 20 seasons

In the Progressive Draft Database forum, there have been 9 drafts posted from 1986. Maddux has gone first 8 times, Bonds only once.

I would put the pick on the trading block, see if you get a Herschel Walker return...

In 1989, at the peak of Walker's NFL career, the Cowboys sent Herschel Walker to the Vikings for five players and six draft picks.

The players were LB Jesse Solomon, DB Isiac Holt, RB Darrin Nelson, LB David Howard, and DE Alex Stewart.

The picks turned into players such as Emmitt Smith, Russell Maryland, Kevin Smith, and Darren Woodson.

Emmitt Smith is one of the greatest, if not the best running back in NFL history. He is the all-time leading rusher with 18,355 yards. His 175 total touchdowns rank him second all-time behind Jerry Rice (207.)

I've been in several 1986 drafts, never with a top 2 pick unfortunately, so I have never personally faced this decision. But I have faced Mays/Mantle in 1951 (spoiler: I took Mays). For what it's worth, my assessment is the following:
-- Both Maddux and Bonds are great picks, and it is not clear to me that 1 is definitely better than the other. You're talking about two all-time great players. Either one is going to win you a lot of games. Whatever you decide, do not look back with regret, just enjoy what you get from that player.
-- You can try trading the pick, but depending on your prog's rules, it may be very difficult to get anything close to equivalent value. Most progs only let you trade draft picks 1 or 2 seasons into the future, and even if someone offers you 2 firsts (1987 and 1988), can you accurately assess where those picks will end up? If you end up drafting, say, 16th and 18th in those two drafts, then it's not even close to an even exchange in my opinion. It's worth floating, but I would not hold your hopes up for a crazy "can't refuse" offer. One thing to consider, would you trade Maddux for Clemens, straight up? I might, depending on what seasons I am forecasting to be in contention. To me, Clemens is the clear choice overall for 1986-92, Maddux for 1993-96, and Clemens pretty much across the board thereafter. Might be off by a season or two in there, but I think those three periods are pretty accurate.
-- I do not agree with the SLB consensus that seems to overwhelmingly favor pitching over position players in progressive drafting. For example, in the same forum that crazystengel mentions above, the SLB consensus in 1975 is Eckersley over Carter, which I think is completely wrong. In my analysis, it's Carter by a mile over Eck. You can win a progressive with good (but not great) pitching and a strong lineup. It's been done many times.
-- Have you considered a coinflip? I'm not kidding, I do this all the time in life when faced with tossup decisions. But maybe not in the way you think. Try the following. Assign Maddux = heads and Bonds = tails. Flip the coin, with the assumption that the result will determine your pick. Now this is important - pay attention to your mind's IMMEDIATE reaction to the outcome. Not after 30 seconds, after 1/10th of a second. Were you excited or disappointed? That immediate reaction before you have really had a chance to think about it will tell you a lot about your actual preference.

Good luck, and again, don't look back. The only mistake in my opinion would be trading the pick without being absolutely sure you are getting great value in return.

Personally I would draft Maddux because of the era. If this was in the 60's or 70's, I'd take Bonds. But long term, consistently good/great pitching is harder to find in this era than a corner OF bat.
Either pick would be great though, and in a 20 team league for this era, I'd probably actually take Bonds because pitching is going to be plentiful and having the best hitter in the era can do some work

Maddux went 8-0 for me in the playoffs in a Prog in one of his monster years. If you can rest him enough during the regular season you'll have enough innings left to pitch him every other game. I take Greg every time.

I agree with TulsaG, too. You have deep SP and you're in every game.

The Maddux arguments make a lot of sense, and that's probably the move purely to maximize title chances. Can't go wrong with a stud pitcher like him.

But I think you should take Bonds. You said he's your boy and the Giants are your favorite team - I think you'd have a lot of fun with him, and still get plenty of title shots over his career. It's a chance to have your favorite player for his entire career.

He would have the option to flip him later if it doesn't go as well as expected. He would be a hot commodity, as his later seasons are terrific..

I would tend to agree w/ C23 that trying to trade the pick for #2 is not going to net you much because the guy at #2 is probably asking himself the same question, why would he overpay?

I do however think an elite pitcher is more valuable than an elite OF. Comparing Carter to Eck is not really valid. Not because of the pitcher vs. hitter but because impact catchers are RARE.

I have often traded "names" for multiple good players. This is a numbers game. Some of those superstars demand a huge amount in a trade but if you look at stats year in/out, often there are multiple guys who are +/- 10% in the categories that matter...I once traded Mike Schmidt draft pick for Larry Bowa, Buddy Bell, Tommy John and a pick that I used for Jim Rooker. Schmidt was a monster in that progressive but I got a starting SS and 3B for almost a decade, got two decent pitchers for 4-5 years and Won because of that trade. The guy w/ Schmidt...won nothing.

Excellent comments! Thank you all for the input. Some good ideas to chew on.

Man - that Herschel Walker trade was nuts. set-up a little mini-dynasty.

I will put the pick on the block and see if anything comes of it. I'll let you all know.

Thanks for commenting!