MOD Padres v 2.0 - vote
Padres have the third pick (as well as the 52nd & 83rd)…
We discussed – a bit – in the first MOD various #3 candidates… Now is your chance to vote.
I’ve eliminated a few people who I think are either redundant (i.e. I can’t see taking Gibson over White, Crow, or Scheppers or taking Purke over Matzek, etc.) and added two players (Grant Green – with whom the Padres are linked, and Jacob Turner, arguably the top prep RHP in the draft).
Lastly, just so you know, I will not use this to make my decision, but it will influence me. I’m wondering what the consensus is among my “scouts” – who you all want to take.
Please vote and comment – tell me why you voted.
0 recs |
12 comments
Comments
I think ya gotta go pitching
Sure, you need positional pieces, but there just isn’t enough high impact arms in the system. Just a question of college or HS. Matzek and Turner are nice, but if it’s me, I’d lean towards going Crow there (assuming he’s available, and barring a surprise, he should be). I like Scheppers as well, but I like Crow’s stuff a bit better.
by toonsterwu on May 21, 2009 11:40 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I don't know...
I think you always have to go best player available… A few years ago the Padres had a top-5 “can’t miss” prospect who was going to lock down his position for the next decade. Sean Burroughs did in fact miss… It sure would have been nice if the Padres had some depth at 3B coming up behind him at that time.
However, even such, I think Crow is completely defendable pick. I’m not sure I like him more than Matzek or Turner (I’m really liking Turner more and more) and I really like Tate’s upside but you could convince me that it would make more sense to go with one of the collegiate/Ind. pitchers and we could figure out which is best… Maybe you’re right and the Padres should go with Crow.
I’m a little under-whelmed by Grant Green but even he makes some sense…
Kevin Goldstein’s comment seems quite apt, “This could be one of the more interesting picks in the draft.”
by pffriberg on May 21, 2009 11:53 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Impact Arms
I agree with toonster on the impact arms. I actually voted for Turner this time, but I would go with the arm that the scouts like best, be it Turner, White, Scheppers, or Crow.
by Paul R. on May 22, 2009 12:01 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I am still going with my original pick here
in Donovan Tate. Jeff Moorad is looking for a high profile pick, and I don’t think there is any one player that more exemplifies it than Tate. Standing 6’3 and already 200 lbs., he should mature into a 15-20 HR type guy who has excellent tools to go along with fantastic bloodlines, and will anchor the OF in the cavern where balls go to die.
Green is a guy who before this season I would’ve bet would be the pick here, but when you combine his lack of progress, one has to wonder if his sophomore season was his peak.
One other guy I think Moorad & Fson may pop here, and it may indicate how much leverage Fuson has lost with the new ownership group coming in, is what they target in terms of pitching. A preference for polished college arms who may not have the best raw stuff may indicate Fuson is on the way out. In that case, I could see a guy like Scheppers, with his easy arm action throwing mid-to-high 90s heat, be a guy that Moorad would target.
But my instinct says we should draft Tate, and stick to that.
by thomasps3 on May 22, 2009 9:21 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
KG said...
…that Fuson loves Tate…
I’m leaning towards deciding between one of the high schoolers (Tate, Jacobs, or Matzek – but changes almost daily – Crow’s growing on me and I keep going back ’n forth on White)…
by pffriberg on May 22, 2009 10:03 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
wELL, A POINT
That was made in another post that I want to mention here is not really who(prognosticators) likes whom, but what you would do with the selection as GM of the Padres. For what it is worth, I think Tate is the BPA, and if I was the GM, I would definitely pull the trigger on him….
by thomasps3 on May 22, 2009 11:58 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
For what it's worth...
I TOTALLY agree with your “best player available” approach. However, Right-handers who throw 98 (Jacobs) don’t grown on trees, and Lefties who throw 93-95 do not either…
So I COMPLETELY agree with your philosophy, I’m just not as sold on Tate as “the guy.” What will be real interesting (because of Seattle’s front man’s Z…’s – I forget how to spell his name – secretive nature) is what happens if Seattle does not take Ackley?
by pffriberg on May 22, 2009 4:13 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ackley
Ackley, Ackley at 3 if he idsn’t by some miracle taken by SEA, but with his 19th HR this season, he has erased all doubts about his power….but I guess that is another discussion, because I can’t see how Ackley isn’t the pick for SEA
And I understand your take on the Tate dilemma. Personal preference is what makes this a great site, and why I continually search for input that is original and not just regurgitated from the prognosticators….
This, however, is a pleasant dilemma to have.
by thomasps3 on May 22, 2009 4:19 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
My current ranking:
Tate (highest upside – fairly big bust risk)
Turner (I think midwest guys are under-rated – to that end I wonder if I should like him more than Tate)
Matzek (best LHP in the draft – could be a MONSTER – had to pass)
Crow (best combo of polish and stuff – would move QUICK)
by pffriberg on May 22, 2009 6:00 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ackley
Seems like an easy pick if he somehow slipped. He’d match the BPA with a position of need (CF or 2B) and the polished college bat that the Padres love.
by Paul R. on May 23, 2009 8:39 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
This link argues fairly convincingly against a high school pitcher, even one as talented and Mid-Western as Turner seems to be.
The author indicates that 3% of high school pitchers drafted in the first round became “stars” while under control of the team that drafted them and pnly 8% became “regulars” within that time frame. Interesting…
by Paul R. on May 24, 2009 10:43 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Who do we like @ 52, 83?
Guys I would consider:
@3
1. Ackley – Gotta hope for the athlete with the special bat
2. Crow – + sinker, + slider, +command, get him in and teach him a change!
3. Tate – We DO need athletes. I would love to see him fall to us in the 2nd and show we’re committed to the draft! Questions about the bat → high bust potential (same can be said about all the pitchers).
4. Turner – Best HS righty, BIG arm. BIG curve.
5. Matzek – Could be a beast, a little scared by inconsistent command (Mark Phillips anyone?)
6. Gibson – I love fastball command. Gibson’s got it and 2 + offspeed pitches.
@52:
1. Matt Hobgood – Hope his arm gets out of the first
2. Jason Kipnis – Draft him again
3. Mike Minor – Don’t like @ 3, would fit @ 52 (doubt he makes it though after regaining the curve in the SEC tourney).
4. Brad Boxberger – 3 potential plus pitches
5. Angelo Songco – A SD bat
6. Zach von Rosenberg – A HS righty w/ advanced command. I LIKE!
7. JR Murphy – C, Good hitter, Good athlete, likely to stay behind the plate and hit.
@82
1. Kyle Seager – In the Logan Forsythe mold. Could be Bill Mueller.
2. Marc Krauss – Good hitting corner OF, did great on the Cape – which we tend to pay attention to.
3. Chris Dominguez – Another Cape hitter, Big Power, improving pitch recognition.
4. Matt Bashore – Good college lefty, has hit 95.
5. Michael Heller – Projectable HS righty, has hit 97 (inconsistent secondary stuff)
6. Andrew Doyle – Pitchability college righty (doesn’t sound exciting but has 3 average pitches and command) Future 3.
Some other guys i like for later in the draft: Jonathan Singleton, big HS 1b power bat. Mark Fleury, college C w/ some power and plate discipline, Ryan Jackson if we believe he can hit (otherwise we’ve already got him and his name is beamer weems), Kent Matthes (big power bat)
by seafog on May 27, 2009 5:32 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

by 










