Who Are Your '08 Draft Winners? Kneejerk Fun!

by abbreviatedman on Aug 16, 2008 2:01 PM EDT

We should wait 10 years before analyzing a draft, but who wants to analyze the '98 draft? Let's do this one before the ink dries. Who came out as winners? Who lost? Who are your heroes, who are your villains? (I'm guessing someone will pick Boras.) What players did well, what players didn't? Who had the best draft, who had the worst?

Mostly I want your opinions, but here are a couple of mine.

Winners:

Boston Red Sox - spent a TON of money on this draft. Whether they get anything out of it remains to be seen. I'm not sure I like their expensive draftees, except for Westmoreland. But even if you want to argue that they got nothing but second- or third-tier draftees, they got a ton of them.

Every team in the top 5 - Surprisingly, it took until pick #6 for someone to not pick one of the best guys available. Usually someone messes up before then. Extra points to the Giants, getting Posey that "low".

The Rangers - I Heart Justin Smoak. #11? Really?

KC Royals - Getting Hosmer and Mellville. Awesome.

Aaron Crow? Maybe? Just a thought, one I probably don't even really agree with, but could he go the Luke Hochevar route, prove himself in indy ball and go even higher next year? (Probably not #1, since that's likely to be the Nationals again, but still.)

Final winner - Every player who signed for an above-slot bonus won. There were record deals all-around.

Losers (easy targets):

The Nationals. They lost out on the #9 overall pick over a difference of less than a million dollars. They have a pretty bad farm system and really needed this one. It's superearly, but I'm guessing they won't get anyone as good at #10. Plus, they won't have quite as much leverage next year. Oh well. At least they could pick #1 next year.

The Mariners. How's that fast-moving, win-now closer draftee doing?

The Yankees. Not as much their fault, far as I'm concerned, since it at least seems that they had no way of knowing that Gerritt Cole would simply refuse to sign. If they'd known he was that committed to attending college, they would've picked him in the later rounds. As is, whoever's fault it is, they still lose, as they're not that likely to get as good a player with next year's #30 overall pick (it goes down one extra because of WAS, remember).

Marlins and Astros. You don't pick a catcher just to pick a catcher in the first round, guys.

What do you think, guys?

4 recs | Comment 139 comments

Read Related

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Royals

They’re the big winner in my book. They came away with two top 15 draft prospects and spent over $11 mill on the draft. Dayton Moore is obviously focusing on projectable high school players, and they drafted a ton of young pitchers with upside.

by deezle on Aug 16, 2008 2:31 PM EDT 0 recs

Yeppers

Reason for hope for the diehards…let’s pray to the baseball gods that it works out…

by killa on Aug 17, 2008 3:22 AM EDT up 0 recs

Response

Quick thoughts on your thoughts.

Boston had a nice draft, but I would’ve liked it a whole lot better if Casey Kelly was a RHP rather than a SS.

The Tim Melville signing is nice but should not be overstated. He’s an interesting prospect but almost every part of his game is projection. Hopefully the Royals take it slow with him.

Prediction: Aaron Crow goes mid-first round next year to the first team that realizes that he has basically no leverage when they get a compensation pick if he doesn’t sign. Crow tries to hold out but ends up conceding the point and signing for approx. $3M.

I didn’t get the impression that Marlins drafted Skipworth solely because he was a catcher. It seemed like a situation where a team found that they had a really good feel for a player with premium talent. I think that tends to be underrated as far as a player’s ability to develop in an organization.

Jason Castro wasn’t a horrid pick at 9 . . .perhaps not a huge ceiling but a solid enough looking player with a high floor. The Astros’ farm system needs pretty much anything and everything . . .not a sexy pick but he’ll be useful. And let’s give the Astros at least a little credit relative to previous draft efforts . . .they cut a nice little check to Ross Seaton.

by mrkupe on Aug 16, 2008 2:43 PM EDT 0 recs

bingo

well said. The Astros still screwed up in letting third-rounder Chase Davidson go to college but they did go overslot to get two Texas prep arms in Seaton and Brad Dyldewicz.
This is a sharp contrast to other years where they have been so cheap they’ve basically let their whole draft walk away.
Last year they had no first or 2nd rounder to pay but they still didn’t sign their first pick (Ohio prep SS/RHP Derek Deitrich) and now he looks like a 2010 first rounder.

by nms on Aug 16, 2008 2:47 PM EDT up 0 recs

as for the RedSox

MAN did they pay out a lot of money to get their guys. It seems like they went overslot with everyone. Kelly, Westmoreland and Hissey combined for 6 mil and few more guys got somewhat overslot deals (Lavarnaway, Gibson) and four late round HS arms added up to another 1 mil

by nms on Aug 16, 2008 2:51 PM EDT up 0 recs

Melville

Even after his disappointing senior season, BA rated him the 15th overall prospect available in the draft. He was the #1 overall prep prospect after the 2007 summer circuit, and has been compared to Mark Prior and Phil Hughes.
\
Sure, he’s all about projection just like any HS kid, but unless you’re just flatly against rating HS players high, he should not be discounted.

Founder of the Rowdy Hardy Fan Club

by eazyb81 on Aug 16, 2008 3:00 PM EDT up 0 recs

Response

Not all high school kids are all about projection. But Tim Melville is definitely about projection. Like I said, interesting prospect but there’s not much in the NOW department that suggests we’re looking at a truly elite guy in the making.

But was he worth the money to bring in? Sure, $1M and change isn’t excessive, and he fits the mold of what the Royals are looking for in their prospects.

by mrkupe on Aug 16, 2008 3:11 PM EDT up 0 recs

Define "projection"

From reports I’ve read, Melville has elite stuff right now and has shown elite stuff in the past. I’m not sure how you look at that and say he doesn’t have much now that suggests he’s a truly elite guy.

Does he project to add a few more ticks to his FB or a bit more spin on his curve? Yeah, sure, just like almost every HS pitcher with the “projection” tab. But just saying he’s “interesting” and is all about projection is selling him short, IMO.

Founder of the Rowdy Hardy Fan Club

by eazyb81 on Aug 16, 2008 3:31 PM EDT up 0 recs

+1

Rowdy Hardy Fan Club member.

by doublestix on Aug 16, 2008 3:39 PM EDT up 0 recs

Response

FB sits 88-91, above-average curve, change is like that of 90 percent of other prep pitchers, command has been very good at times and very inconsistent at others. That is not “elite”. Compare him to any guy who’s been considered an exceptional prep pitcher in the last 5 years and he loses the argument. And – perhaps this is the biggest thing to consider – if his stuff really looked exceptional, he would not have slipped. All 30 teams passed on him at least once, even knowing that $1.5M was virtually a lock to get a deal done with him.

Sometimes it’s good to read between the lines.

by mrkupe on Aug 16, 2008 3:41 PM EDT up 0 recs

Eh

Could really go without the snarky comment at the end when we’re discussing a player.

Not sure what reports you’re looking at, but I’ve got PGCrosschecker’s scouting report right here: 91-95 fastball, commands curve and changeup well. There are many similarities athletically and in pitching style/stuff between Melville and 2001 first rounder Mark Prior.

From KC Star piece: The scouting report on Melville is pretty flawless. He’s 6-foot-5 and 205 pounds, with a fastball that he spots well and throws hard — it sits in the low 90s and touches 96. His curveball is a swing-and-miss pitch, and he also throws a changeup.

Based on your analogy, Porcello is not “elite” because teams many teams passed on him as well. From Sam Mellinger’s blog: “Great sign, especially for the value,” says a National League scout. “I had him real high on my list, but we stayed away because we didn’t think he’d sign.” I’m guessing this was the case for many teams, as it appears many teams were scared off by the demands he faxed to each team before the draft to be paid as a top 10-15 prospect.

If you’re not high on him, fine, but saying he’s all projection at this point is just inaccurate.

Founder of the Rowdy Hardy Fan Club

by eazyb81 on Aug 16, 2008 3:53 PM EDT up 0 recs

Response

There was nothing snarky intended about that. Rick Porcello signed for 4 times (on a major league contract!) as much as Tim Melville. And was still drafted in the first round despite that. Oftentimes, what teams do is much more representative than what they say.

If you think I’m trying to say that Melville sucks, I’m really not. He may end up being very good.

by mrkupe on Aug 16, 2008 4:01 PM EDT up 0 recs

But cmon

Doesn’t the money amount at least reflect draft position? Nobody said he was as good as Porcello, but even so, BA had him ranked as the #1 HS entering 2007 for a reason. Give me 4 Melvilles and I bet I get 1 ace to #2-3 SP out of his talent. Tell me another 4th rounder who has ace talent. By the way, if you’re looking at HS numbers, go back to your PS3, because they matter…umm…zero

by killa on Aug 21, 2008 2:19 AM EDT up 0 recs

Response

When did I say anything about his high school numbers? I really couldn’t care what the kid did in high school, he’s a pro now.

That is an exceptionally bold statement, I hope you realize. But are we talking about a frontline (1-2) starter or a mid-rotation (3-4) starter here? If you gave me a prospect identical to Melville WITH a track record of performance through, say, both levels of A ball, I’d guess that like 8-10 Melvilles would make 1 frontline starter. You’d probably get like another 2-3 who measured in somewhere at that 3-4 range. And that’s assuming that he’s a very successful pitcher through the low minors.

Does that sound pessimistic? I sure hope so, cause young pitchers should make you think that. We can guess that Pitching Prospect A is going to be better than Pitching Prospect B, but it’s all on a relative scale. When we narrow the focus down to one pitching prospect in particular, I don’t find myself very excited by all but a very few select arms.

If you disagree with me, that’s fine. Let’s jump in a time machine and head back a couple of years so I can sell you some Homer Bailey cards.

by mrkupe on Aug 21, 2008 3:20 AM EDT up 0 recs

+1

Deric Ladnier said yesterday that all three of Melville’s pitches are “above average major league quality”.

by deezle on Aug 16, 2008 3:44 PM EDT up 0 recs

I don't think that means too much

considering that is the dude that drafted him.

by nms on Aug 16, 2008 4:09 PM EDT up 0 recs

Why would he lie?

And either way, it’s another data point to prove easyb81’s point.

by deezle on Aug 16, 2008 4:14 PM EDT up 0 recs

lie?

who said anything about lying?

People exaggerate things all the time. There isn’t a scouting director in the world that doesn’t try to oversell the abilities of dudes they just paid a million dollars too. I would too, and so would you.

by nms on Aug 16, 2008 4:18 PM EDT up 0 recs

Okay

Why did he exaggerate? And why did Baseball America exaggerate? And why did Perfect Game and others exaggerate? Melville has been almost universally regarded as a top draft prospect with everything you look for in a top HS pitcing prospect. All of that goes against the other guy’s point that Melville is all projection.

by deezle on Aug 16, 2008 4:24 PM EDT up 0 recs

I'm not discounting what BA or PG said

And I’m not saying that Melville isn’t all that. I’m not commenting on the merits of Melville at all.

I’m just saying that a scouting director praising the guy he just paid 7 figures to doesn’t really tell you a whole lot. OF COURSE he is going to talk up his pitches. And if you can’t understand why the director would do that, after paying him 1.25 mil… well then that is a problem that goes beyond baseball. Thats just common sense.

by nms on Aug 16, 2008 4:38 PM EDT up 0 recs

Ladnier

Perhaps if you knew how good a cout Ladnier was, you wouldn’t discount his analysis so quickly. That said, of course scouts like their guys, by definition. You cannot argue 2 things: the guys was a first round talent, and he was rated as #1 HS prospect coming into his senior season. This is a straight up coup for the money, as it basically gives the Royals 2 first round picks, in addition to Sample and Montgomery. Based on scouting reports and projections, you cannot argue that another team got a better Top 4.

by killa on Aug 21, 2008 2:23 AM EDT up 0 recs

Nobody's disputing that he's a good prospect

They’re saying he isn’t as good as Rick Porcello. Very different things,

www.loftylantern.com

by OldProspects on Aug 21, 2008 8:42 AM EDT up 0 recs

Dude

What HSer has “much in the NOW” dept? I challenge you to find a better 4th Round or later pick. I’m pretty sure Tim Beckham, Eric Hosmer, and the rest of the HSers also have a lot of projection, but they don’t have much NOW.

Just Sayin

by killa on Aug 17, 2008 3:26 AM EDT up 0 recs

Response

Wow. If you’ll go look in the Royals thread, you’ll note that I said that Melville is a grade B. Which means that I think he makes for a pretty good prospect.

But I don’t get why I’m supposed to think he’s an elite pitching prospect at this point. I’d obviously be going against the opinion of a lot of MLB teams that clearly didn’t think he was in June. Every team let him pass by at least once, even in rounds where they would’ve been compensated had they not been able to come to agreement with him. Even when he finally did sign, he signed for $1.25 million, which should be recognized as a tacit acknowledgment by the Melville camp themselves as to exactly how much he was worth. He did not get Rick Porcello’s $7 million contract or anything close to it. He didn’t even get Trey Haley’s $1.575 million bonus, and you don’t hear people talking up Haley as the next big thing. Maybe by this time next year Melville will be an outstanding pitching prospect, and to be totally honest with you I really hope he is. But that doesn’t mean I should feel that way now.

It’s okay to feel good about your team’s prospects and everything, but I don’t understand why you and others are getting so defensive about me expressing some reservations about a kid with no minor league experience who spent most of the spring making scouts wonder just what was up with him.

by mrkupe on Aug 17, 2008 4:07 AM EDT up 0 recs

mrkrupe the voice of reason here.

by haverecords on Aug 17, 2008 5:24 AM EDT up 0 recs

Draft placement

I actually agree with your overall evaluation of Melville; he’s not a Porcello type talent and B looks to me just about perfect.

However, your justification strikes me as flawed. Teams passed on him three times not because of talent concerns but because none of them thought he would sign without a huge bonus. KC, his hometown team, is probably the only team that could have signed him for 1.25 mil.

Teams passing is not an indication of talent.

by aCone419 on Aug 17, 2008 4:54 PM EDT up 1 recs

+1

it’s like i tell my royals fan friend…if you weren’t the royals, you would not have gotten melville

"If you hit .440 with 20 bombs, you don't have to do s---. You don't have to bring a glove to practice, just hit and leave whenever you want. You can bring a 40 and smoke a cigarette and call me from the parking lot asking me what time the game is, and I'll tell you. You can even say 'F--- you, Steve!' Actually, don't say that, that wouldn't be very nice." -Steve Friend, Head Coach, Chabot College Gladiators Baseball

by flipgatey3 on Aug 17, 2008 6:32 PM EDT up 0 recs

No way...

BS.

Melville’s asking price of $1.5 million was not that high, certainly nowhere near high enough for big market teams to pass on him multiple times if they really wanted him. The Red Sox drafted Kelly in the 1st round and they preferred him as a PITCHER. They ended up signing Kelly for something like $3 million and knew all along they’d need to pay that much to get him signed. They clearly had the money to EASILY sign Melville but decided to take Kelly instead. The Yankees passed on Melville for Cole who’s asking price was also considerably larger, turns out they didn’t even get him signed after they offered $4 million.

Melville fell because he had a piss-poor season (for a supposed great talent) and his stuff dropped off considerably. Royals fans in this thread are greatly overstating his current stuff…Mark Prior? Are you kidding me? He’s currently a low 90’s pitcher who pitched around 90mph this past season. His offspeed stuff is promising but inconsistent. He is a good prospect but it appears that actual teams seemed to be more worried/not as impressed by him than BA. This was a record breaking year in terms of the money thrown around, with quite a few players receiving near $1 million or exceeding $1 million past the first few rounds. If you think that Melville fell that far because of his $1.5 million demand then you are either delusional or a giant homer. Comparison to Porcello? Porcello was asking for $6+ million plus an MLB contract and he still didn’t fall out of the first, if Melville was as good as Royals fans here are harping him as there is no way he would have fallen to the 4th with a $1.5 million demand, period.

by metafour on Aug 18, 2008 10:30 AM EDT up 0 recs

Just to put Melville's 1.5 M asking price into perspective...

Robbie Ross was asking for a contract in the1.5 M range before the draft and was selected with the 11th pick in the 2nd Round. All teams knew of his demands prior to the draft and yet that forced him to the 2nd instead of late first or a supplemental pick.

I am not saying that Ross is a better prospect, but their is some reason that Melville slipped so far while Ross only slipped to the 2nd.

by laxtonto on Aug 18, 2008 11:19 AM EDT up 0 recs

Reason

The reason is the other teams didn’t think he would sign. His reported asking price was top 10-15 money, which is higher than what Ross signed for.

by aCone419 on Aug 18, 2008 12:03 PM EDT up 0 recs

"asking price"

As far as I can tell, Melville did not float a hard asking price before the draft; what he did do is fax all MLB teams saying he would only consider signing if he was offered a bonus worthy of a top 10 or 15 draft prospect. He also had a UNC offer in his back pocket, a tough program to pry away HS players.

Melville accepted a $1.25MM bonus from the Royals, and many have speculated that he would have only been willing to sign with the Royals. In an article with the KC Star, Royals Scouting Director Deric Ladnier admitted that Melville was almost family at this point, and Melville himself said right after he was drafted that he felt most comfortable with the KC organization.

Thus, I think it’s too simplistic to just look at the overall bonus numbers to deduce that Melville was not viewed as high by MLB teams as publications like BA.

Founder of the Rowdy Hardy Fan Club

by eazyb81 on Aug 18, 2008 2:22 PM EDT up 0 recs

Sh....

A) I’m not a Royals fan, so I can’t be a homer. That must make me delusional. Thanks for the diagnosis.

B) The fact that the Red Sox liked Kelly and the Yankees liked Cole has nothing to do with evaluating Melville. All three were projected first round talents, and a team preferring one to the others means jack diddly is hardly shocking.

C) You are free to speculate all you want, but I am basing my analysis on quotes I have read from people in the industry and their reaction. They thought there was no way he would sign if he fell out of the first round, and that the Royals got a hell of a deal.

D) I think Melville was dead serious about going to UNC, a la Matt Harvey, except that his hometown team drafted him. I think other teams knew this.

E) I specifically said he WASN’T like Porcello, so… chill out.

by aCone419 on Aug 18, 2008 11:56 AM EDT up 0 recs

QUOTES

“Great sign, especially for the value,” says a National League scout. “I had him real high on my list, but we stayed away because we didn’t think he’d sign.”

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

“That’s something,” says a scout from a different NL team. “This kid really has a chance to be special. I know people there (in Kansas City) see a lot of losing, but I know a lot of guys who work for your team, and they’re really doing it the right way. It’ll take a while, if it does happen, but they’re really doing it right.”

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

“Could be the real deal,” says an AL scout who saw Melville many times. “Could be better than any of these guys they’ve signed in a long time. He’s what they’re supposed to look like.” He’s 6-5, big, strong, athletic, who says this guy can’t be Roger Clemens? Seriously. He’s got a chance to be a (No.) 2 or 3 starter in the big leagues."

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

But two of these scouts say they had Melville rated higher than Aaron Crow, the Mizzou right-hander who went ninth to the Nationals and is reported to be looking for a big-league contract for “premium dollars.”

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

And the biggie…

Before and after the draft, Melville and his family grew closer and closer with scouting director Deric Ladnier and other members of the Royals’ staff. That relationship was so close that many in baseball circles felt the Royals were the only organization that could get Melville to skip his scholarship to play at North Carolina.

Rowdy Hardy Fan Club member.

by doublestix on Aug 18, 2008 2:57 PM EDT up 1 recs

Jim Callis called Melville the biggest coup of the first 10 rounds</a..

BCB's "very own marginally deserving all-star!"

by battlekow on Aug 19, 2008 8:48 PM EDT up 0 recs

Response

I would’ve been very surprised if Melville had left $1.25M on the table from any team. He clearly wanted to sign if the money was close enough. The UNC commitment wasn’t even a factor until teams started to sour on him a bit. And I can’t think that the hometown discount was that major . . .I would suggest that even in the worst case, $1.5M gets this deal done.

It was never a matter of Melville falling out of the first round, because as we all know, first round talents don’t get drafted in the first round all the time, often because of money. But most teams had a chance to draft him multiple times and chose not to do so, even those for whom a $1.5M signing bonus would’ve been easily doable. He would’ve made a fine insurance policy in the worst case for the Yankees with Cole, and the Yankees love projection pitchers. The Red Sox clearly have no issues about handing a premium level talent a huge signing bonus to get a deal done. The Angels didn’t even draft until No. 74, so certainly they had the money to blow on a Melville. They actually ended up in almost exactly the same situation last year with Matt Harvey (Angels drafted one guy ahead of him at No. 58) . . .notably, Harvey passed up an offer for TWICE as much as the one that Melville accepted.

by mrkupe on Aug 18, 2008 1:02 PM EDT up 0 recs

1.5m

I’m not sure where this number is coming from (not saying it is wrong), but the story as I heard it (according to Callis) was that right before the draft he politely faxed his demands to teams and said that he would need top 10-15 money to sign, which works out to 1.75m at minimum. So regardless of what might actually have taken, at the time, it looked like teams were passing on him because they didn’t think he would sign.

And the fact the Red Sox or whoever passed on him thrice doesn’t mean they wouldn’t have taken and paid him later. See Will Middlebrooks in the 5th last year. They “passed” on Westmoreland four times this year before paying him eleventy billion dollars. It might just as easily mean they thought he would slide farther and they could still take him. Or perhaps the teams that thought highest of him were not the teams with unlimited checkbooks, and they were scared off. You seem to be making a lot assumptions about the thought processes of teams, when there are simpler explanations readily available.

As for someone taking him as an insurance policy, that doesn’t usually happen in the top three rounds.

by aCone419 on Aug 18, 2008 1:58 PM EDT up 0 recs

His mom

Wrote a letter, check out the scout.com thread for this, Melville wasn’t even in charge. Bottom line, he slipped due to signability concerns, and has the upside of an ace. This is pretty consistent fomr what I’ve ssen.

by killa on Aug 21, 2008 2:33 AM EDT up 0 recs

Response

To the post above this one: the easiest answer is that teams simply didn’t think the kid was worth what he was very publicly asking for. If they honestly thought he was the talent that some are suggesting he is, the money figures being tossed around should have hardly been enough to deter a team from taking him. It’s pretty obvious that while there are some scouts who very much like him, there are plenty of scouts who didn’t think he was worth the money or trouble, and I don’t know why they would’ve changed their mind in the last two months of inactivity.

As has been noted by BA, a whopping 4 teams did not go over slot at any point in the draft this year. I really doubt that Melville’s signability was that much of a question to TWENTY FIVE different teams (30 – those 4 teams – the Royals). Something really doesn’t add up here, and at least one of the following seems to be true:

1) Teams weren’t cheap, but they WERE cheap when it came to a guy once hailed as one of the best pitchers in his class
2) Teams are dumb, they just totally forgot Tim Melville existed until the 4th round
3) Everybody suddenly believed that Melville’s UNC commitment (the one that nobody seemed to pay much attention to until a month before the draft) would prove a serious hindrance to signing him
4) Multiple teams simply did not think Melville was worth top 10-15 money, and felt they had good reasons to believe so

I’m sure the Royals are happy about the Melville signing and they should be. But there ARE reasons why he went from extremely signable and near the top of the class to very questionable signability with his stock falling. I don’t see a reason to ignore this development – the last time the scouts watched Melville over a prolonged period of time, they just weren’t all that impressed. Maybe that’s not what KC fans want to hear, but the scouts DO have reasons for doing what they do and saying what they say.

by mrkupe on Aug 21, 2008 3:44 AM EDT up 0 recs

4th

I don’t think there is much difference between saying that he fell due to outrageous demands and saying teams didn’t want to pay him what he was demanding.

I agree that there are reasons he went from very signable to having his stock fall, but I don’t understand why you don’t think the fact that he telegraphed excessive demands is reason enough.

His stock was down throughout the spring, sure. That’s why he was no longer considered a top 6 pick. But he had come back on before the draft. Here is BA’s last draft tracker (where he was ranked 12) from before the draft, and I think it also explains why teams were wary of him past the top half of the first round:

link

Melville’s family sent scouts a letter stating he wants to sign but will go to North Carolina if he’s not picked (and of course paid) in the 10-to-15 range. After finishing strong, that’s about where he fits.

by aCone419 on Aug 21, 2008 3:11 PM EDT up 0 recs

Braves

the definitely didn’t get the best talent, but considering that their first pick was in the supplemental first, it has to be looked at as an early success. They arguably got three first round talents in DeVall, Spruill, and Thompson, some other high-upside guys in Stovall, Kimbrel, and Hoover, and signed each of their top 15 picks.

by was385 on Aug 16, 2008 2:44 PM EDT 0 recs

+1

Robert Brooks, SS, 20 Y.O.

This kid has been outstanding since he was drafted. .362/.461/.554 that’s a 1.015 OPS in 130 AB. He has nice plate discipline and good power. Hopefully he can keep up his performance as he moves up and plays tougher comp.

by Jay212033 on Aug 16, 2008 4:01 PM EDT up 0 recs

I don't think the Marlins and Astros

picked a catcher just to pick a catcher. The Marlins in particular picked a guy who had drawn raves. Folks from PG and BA both mentioned that Skipworth’s skills wouldn’t be out of place for a #1 overall guy.

I didn’t like the Castro love early in the year considering his crap track record and I think Stanfurd dudes often get overrated but then I saw him at the CWS and he looked GOOD. Big, real athletic, super arm. Probably still a reach at 10, but if you like a guy, you like a guy.

by nms on Aug 16, 2008 2:45 PM EDT 0 recs

castro

wasn’t he considered the biggest overdraft by any team? sure he was probably the third best catching prospect to come out of this draft but I was under the impression that he wasn’t even supposed to be taken till the supplemental round. with players like smoak still on the board, i think that would qualify the castro pick as a failure.

by zeisenbe on Aug 17, 2008 4:51 PM EDT up 0 recs

ha

a failure?

Come on. Just because a team picked a guy fans and observers didn’t hype as much doesn’t mean that it is a “failure” of a pick. That is ridiculous hyperbole.

As I said, I initially was under the assumption Castro was overrated but once I saw him play he looked like a plus defender with offensive potential.
He doesn’t have the bat that Smoak has but he can hit some and the difference between a 1b and a good gloved C is huge. Castro doesn’t have to hit half of what Smoak does, yet he is talented enough to hit 20 homers.

I still think he was an overdraft, but that doesn’t mean the pick was a “failure.”
The pick won’t be a failure unless Castro doesn’t deliver any value to the ’Stros, either as an MLB player or trade bait. And right now, Castro looks – to me – like a potential starting MLB catcher.

And he wouldn’t’ve lasted til the supplemental round at all. Word was very strong that the Mets, and others, were high on him. He might not have even made it out of the top 15-20.

And I’m not just trying to be an Astros apologist either. I’m usually very critical of their approach to the draft.

by nms on Aug 17, 2008 5:26 PM EDT up 0 recs

"And he wouldn’t’ve lasted til the supplemental round"

Precisely. I’ve never had a problem with overdrafting a player to ensure getting the specific player you want. Castro is solid all-around, has advanced skills both sides of the ball, and will move quickly; which is precisely what the Astros need. Sure, there were still some superstar caliber players on the board. However, Castro’s intangibles as a catcher should be instrumental in building a pitching staff. A player like this is hard to find, and the Astros recognized this. And trust me, three or four years down the road, Houston is not going to have ANY problem on the free agent market if they need to sign a big corner-infield slugger.

by StickRat on Aug 17, 2008 5:37 PM EDT up 0 recs

Give me a break

There were still potential stars on the board, like Smoak, and while I like Castro, no one sees him as a star. You have to take Smoak there.

by aap212 on Aug 18, 2008 2:19 PM EDT up 0 recs

Well, I actually had the 10th overall pick in my shadow draft this year. And I DID take Smoak. So, you are right on the money. However, this is one of those things that falls in the “intangibles” category. You can’t have a legit contender unless you have a good, experienced catcher. The Rangers, who did take Smoak, have had plenty of star power in recent years. Where has that gotten them?

by StickRat on Aug 18, 2008 3:49 PM EDT up 0 recs

What?

You can’t have a contender without a good, experienced catcher? Didn’t people used to say that about shortstops before the Walt Weiss A’s?

More to the point, intangibles may be important, but tangibles come first. You build a winning team by adding valuable players to it. If everything breaks right for Castro, he’s a good catcher but not in the elite class of guys like Martin, Mauer, McCann, and Soto. If everything breaks right for Smoak, he’s in the Bagwell-Texeira mold of guys who are elite players despite playing first base. You take the potential MVP when he’s on the board—especially when he’s not asking for crazy money or a notorious bad makeup guy.

To be fair, I don’t think the Astros are the only team that blew it by not taking Smoak.

by aap212 on Aug 18, 2008 4:08 PM EDT up 0 recs

Adding valuable players

Depends on what you consider valuable. Walt Weiss is a great example. Drafted 11th overall by Oakland in 1985. Great draft year. Taken ahead of Gregg Jeffries and Rafael Palmeiro … both elite talents who, if you look at the back of their baseball cards, had vastly better careers. Yet, the two combined for 34 big-league seasons and neither so much as appeared in a World Series. The A’s however needed a good, servicable shortstop in the late ’80s. Weiss comes up in ’88, wins the Rookie Of The Year by hitting a marginal .250, and helps Oakland to three consecutive World Series appearances. So, Who was more valuable? Subjective question … but it shows there are no absolutes when it comes to the value of a player.

As for catchers, two things all catchers who played for World Series winners have in common. They are all veterans. They all have excellent game-calling abilities. (The one exception to that rule is if your last name is Molina, who were all relatively young when they won their rings.) Castro projects to be one of those catchers.

by StickRat on Aug 18, 2008 4:39 PM EDT up 0 recs

This isn't basketball

You can’t judge a single player for what his teams do. Do you think Ted Williams was less valuable than Phil Rizzuto?

Walt Weiss was a good and important part of those teams, but no one would have noticed him if those teams didn’t have Canseco, McGwire, Dave Henderson, Dave Stewart, etc. The role players are important, but the stars are more important. If Jeffries and Palmeiro had been on better run teams, they would have rings, too. Well, Palmeiro, at least.

Also, game calling is the biggest snake oil in baseball analysis. I don’t doubt that some catchers are better than others, but there’s absolutely no way to prove that any one catcher is a better game-caller than another in most cases. Jason Varitek has been terrible for two years—the Red Sox aren’t winning because they have a catcher with game-calling abilities. They’re winning because they’ve built a great team around him.

And Posada had started what, 50 games before he took over as catcher and immediately was on world series winners?

While we’re at it, how many teams in a given year have starting catchers that aren’t veterans?

by aap212 on Aug 18, 2008 4:53 PM EDT up 0 recs

I’m not touching the Williams vs. Rizzuto question.

Despite the A’s star power, they probably would not have gotten to the World Series without Weiss. His defense was invaluable to that team, hence the reason he won ROY.

Varitek is recognized as a bad game caller for the same reason John Tudor was recognized as an average pitcher when he was in Boston. Fenway Park is all out of whack, and is just going to make most pitchers and catchers look bad; because it nullifies the status quo of how batteries approach the game.

The first ring Posada won was in ’98 when the Yankees swept the Padres. And while it was his first full year of big-league ball, Joe Girardi actually started two of those World Series games.

Last question … looking at the NL West, Russ Martin and Chris Snyder are probably the most accomplished catchers in the division, outside of Bengie Molina who is handling one of the premier pitching staffs in baseball.

by StickRat on Aug 18, 2008 5:17 PM EDT up 0 recs

But none of that answers whether you would rather have an above-average but not great catcher or a major star first baseman. The Cardinals couldn’t have won in 2006 without Molina, but Pujols was far and away the most important part of that team.

by aap212 on Aug 18, 2008 5:24 PM EDT up 0 recs

Depends on organizational need. This year, if I’m the Cardinals, Todd Wellemeyer and Kyle Lohse are as important as Pujols, because the pitching staff is in disarray. Wellemeyer and Lohse have been more instrumental in the Cards being a contender this year, and I think Yadier Molina has a lot to do with that. Pujols is an absolutely brilliant player, but in today’s market the Astros can go out and sign a power hitter like Carlos Lee. World Series caliber catchers are hard to find. Why do you think Brian Sabean traded the pitchers he did for AJ Piersynski? Because Piersynski is one of those catchers.

Interesting fact by the way, the only year Ted Williams played in the World Series was 1946, which was the one year Hal Wagner caught for Boston. I obviously have no clue what kind of game caller Wagner was, but his career .248 batting average tells me he wasn’t around for 12 season because he was Mike Piazza.

by StickRat on Aug 18, 2008 5:43 PM EDT up 0 recs

Ugh.

1) Wellemeyer and Lohse are never more valuable than Pujols. You’re taking Pujols for granted because he’s always there. “Because the pitching staff is in disarray” is faulty logic—without Pujols their offense would be in disarray every year. Pujols is perennially one of the handful of most valuable players in baseball. It’s offensive to compare a guy like Lohse to him.

2) If you put Carlos Lee on the Cardinals instead of Pujols, they would be a much worse team every year. Not all power hitters are created equal. Pujols’ career OBP and SLG are roughly 80 and 100 points higher than Lee’s, respectively, and he’s a more valuable defensive player.

3) You missed my point Varitek completely, but your Wagner point is just ridiculous and missing the point once again. Setting aside the strange implication about Ted Williams, your point about Wagner shows that you’ve never heard of the Nichols Law of Catcher Defense. You’re extremely guilty of it right now.

by aap212 on Aug 18, 2008 5:54 PM EDT up 0 recs

Well, the Nichols Law is flawed as a “law”. I mean, it isn’t a constant like gravity. So to call it law kind shows that it’s a de facto slippery slope to bring into a debate such as this. Mike Piazza is a perfect example of a guy who was justly criticized as a defensive catcher. And few would argue that Johnny Bench was one of the best defensive catchers of all time.

As for Pujols, I’m not taking him for granted. He is a truly great player. He’s only hit .233 in World Series games with catchers Mike Matheny and Yadier Molina behind the plate of those Cardinals teams. But I am not comparing Pujols and Lohse as players. I am weighing their contributions to this year’s success. My point is that good pitching wins championships, and good catching is an epically overlooked fascet of good pitching.

So, Castro vs. Smoak … it was a groundwork decision for Houston. Castro is a solid foundation, whereas Smoak is a cornerstone. Gotta put the foundation before the cornerstone.

by StickRat on Aug 18, 2008 7:19 PM EDT up 0 recs

Was Max Sapp a groundwork decision?

And no, you don’t have to put the foundation before the cornerstone in baseball. You draft and sign your superstars. The Yankees built a dynasty with good luck in drafting superstars, then using trades and free agency to get their role players.

You don’t spend the 10th pick of the draft on a guy with little chance to be a star.

And your Pujols point still doesn’t make any sense. For one thing, the Cardinals wouldn’t have sniffed the playoffs in the first place without him.

by aap212 on Aug 18, 2008 7:30 PM EDT up 0 recs

I’m not debating proper drafting strategy per se. Like I said originally, I took Smoak in that slot. (It just so happened I was drafting from the same slot as the Astros this year.) I am debating why the Astros took him, and that it was in fact a logical and good choice. You disagree. I understand that. However, different teams employ different strategies, and the Astros drafted a player they can build upon … not around.

Max Sapp … he was drafted out of high school. J.R. Towles out of community college. Castro was drated out of one of the premier Div. I schools in the nation, that has an incredible success rate for highly-touted position players over the past few years. So there is much more stock in the projection for Castro, than Sapp.

by StickRat on Aug 18, 2008 8:02 PM EDT up 0 recs

Stanford’s incredible success rate? Quentin and…? You want to hang your hat on Garko? On Lowrie already? Gerut? Borchard? Fuld? Bruntlett?

by aap212 on Aug 18, 2008 8:25 PM EDT up 0 recs

Quentin, Lowrie, Garko ...

John Mayberry and Michael Taylor are on their way. Chris Lewis and Cord Phelps are going to be interesting guys out of this year’s class, along with Castro. So yeah, not to shabby.

by StickRat on Aug 18, 2008 8:55 PM EDT up 0 recs

That’s not a great list for a top program. One star, one top prospect, and a few maybes, on top of some notable flops. And you can’t put Castro on that list if the list is supposed to justify Castro.

by aap212 on Aug 18, 2008 10:14 PM EDT up 0 recs