Very Early 2012 Mock Draft
by ilikeburritos on Dec 26, 2011 12:34 PM EST
Email
PrintThis is one of the very few times I've done a full scale first round mock draft. If there's any pick that you don't agree with, bear with me, but I'm willing to listen to any criticisms, advice, etc.
1) Houston Astros- Mark Appel RHP- If the Astro's are gonna get out of the cellar any time soon, they need help in the minors and quick too. Appel could become a rotation anchor and could go through the minors quickly.
2) Minnesota Twins- Mike Zuzino- C- The Twins could also use a good- hitting catcher, especially since it's doubtful Mauer would return to being a catcher any time soon. Of course they also need help with pitching and could go with McCullers or Giolito here too.
3) Seattle Mariners- Byron Buxton- OF- The Mariners need bats. Period. They have sufficient pitching and their rotation is top notch with Pineda and Felix, along with Hultzen in the minors, but they just can't hit. Buxton is raw, but he has talent across the board and can provide a good bat to go along with Ackley and Smoak. The Mariners may need more than Buxton to turn the lineup around, but it's a good starting point.
4) Baltimore Orioles- Lucas Giolito-RHP- The best high school pitcher in the the draft, Giolito would provide a nice 1-2 punch along with Bundy a few years down the line. The O's could use some great pitching prospects, especially because the young pitching has been in shambles(although they could all improve).
5) Kansas City Royals- Lance McCullers- RHP- The Royals have shown that they're willing to take high-risk, high- reward players, such as Bubba Starling. Although McCullers has the risk of turning into a relief pitcher with his max-effort delivery, the raw stuff is there, highlighted by a nasty curveball and an upper-90s fastball. If injuries don't strike, he can become a top-notch pitcher.
6) Chicago Cubs- Kevin Gausman- RHP- The Cubs' farm system needs some work, and Gausman could provide a good boost to the system. If they decide to keep Garza, then Gausman can provide a nice 1-2 punch with Garza. If not, then Gausman can turn out to be a good rotation anchor for the club.
7) San Diego Padres- Chris Beck- RHP- The Padres don't have much in terms of top of the rotation starters. Beck provides both polish and stuff, so he can rise through the system quickly AND become a top of the rotation starter. Could fill the void left by Latos in a hurry.
8) Pittsburgh Pirates- Devin Marrero- SS- The Pirates have drafted a quite a few SS before, but not many of them will stick at the position. Marrero, however, will stick at the position and will provide a decent bat with excellent defense.
9) Miami Marlins- Max Fried- LHP- The Marlins love prep arms and Fried is the best left handed prep pitcher in the draft with a fastball that can reach the mid-90s with an excellent curveball.
10) Colorado Rockies- Trey Williams- 3B- Although the Rockies have Nolan Arenado for the future, Williams could only add to the lineup of great hitters in the club.
11) Oakland A's- Kenny Diekroeger- SS- The A's need hitters and because of the ginormous ballpark they play in, home run hitters may not be as effective as many would think. But Diekroeger provides a solid hitting approach and quick bat speed, and does not necessarily rely heavily on home run power to get by. This could bode well for playing in Oakland.
12) New York Mets- Carlos Correa- SS- With the loss of Jose Reyes, the Mets don't really have many players in the majors nor in the minors to fill the void. But Correa could fill that gap with solid defensive tools and outstanding power.
13) Chicago White Sox- Michael Wacha- RHP- The White Sox farm system one of the worst in the majors, but Wacha could turn things around in a hurry and could turn out to be a durable big-league starter. He probably won't be an ace, but he would be a starting point in re-building the system.
14) Cincinnati Reds- Walker Weickel- RHP- The Reds shelled out quite a lot to get Latos, and could use both pitching and hitting to replenish the system, but you can never have too much pitching, and Weickel is one of the best high school pitchers in the draft. He, along with Robert Stephenson, could build a nice, 1-2-3 punch in the Reds' rotation a few years down the line with Matt Latos.
15) Cleveland Indians- Victor Roache- OF- The Indians need some help in the outfield. Choo will need to go through the mandatory military service in Korea and Grady Sizemore isn't a guarantee to stay healthy. Roache could become a very good power hitting outfielder and could provide the talent in the outfield that the Indians need.
16) Washington Nationals- Gavin Cecchini-SS- The Nationals don't have much depth in terms of shortstops, and the ones in the majors aren't doing very well either. Cecchini has great potential with the bat and has decent defense at shortstop. And even if he doesn't stick at shortstop, he may still be good at second, and the Nationals would need middle infielders anyway.
17) Toronto Blue Jays- Lucas Sims- RHP- The Blue Jays love young prep arms as well, and since Giolito, McCullers, Fried, and Weickel are all taken, Sims would be the next best prep arm in the draft. He has a nice fastball that can reach 98 with a curveball that is regarded as one of the best in the draft. Like many prep arms, he still needs to work on his changeup, but it has good potential.
18) Los Angeles Dodgers- Brian Johnson-LHP- The Dodgers do have a plethora of young pitchers, but not left handed pitchers. Johnson could provide them with a workhorse left handers who would fit in nicely in the middle of the rotation.
19) St. Louis Cardinals- Joey Gallo- 1B- The Cardinals are slowly but surely losing sluggers. They lost Pujols to the Angels and Berkman isn't gonna last forever. Gallo has amazing power and despite concerns about whether he'll be able to make enough contact, at worst he can end up as a Carlos Pena- like hitter, but he'll be able to crank out 30 home runs per year if everything goes right.
20) San Francisco Giants- Albert Almora- OF- The Giants still need hitters. They have a great rotation but still need hitters. Almora has solid tools across the board and has good hitting skills too.
21) Atlanta Braves- Stryker Trahan- C- A potential 5- tool catcher! That's something new! And even though Brian McCann's in charge of the backstop, Trahan is athletic enough to make a positional switch. The sky is the limit for him.
22) Toronto Blue Jays- Nick Williams- OF- Williams has some terrific potential with the bat, even though his defense lags behind. If he reaches his full potential with the bat, he can complement a lineup with Bautista even though his defense may end up being below-average.
23) St. Louis Cardinals- Hunter Virant- LHP- Virant is still raw in terms of pitching experience but has tons of potential. Could add to a great stockpile of high-ceiling arms in the farm system. Can never have too many young arms.
24) Boston Red Sox- Taylore Cherry- RHP- The Red Sox farm system needs some work and must start with the pitching(most of the pitching in the system has struggled as well). Cherry is a giant pitcher with equally high potential.
25) Tampa Bay Rays- Matt Smoral- LHP- The Rays like high- ceiling talent, and Smoral is exactly that: a giant left hander with some potential plus pitches. He's going to need some time to develop, but the talent and the ceiling is there.
26) Arizona Diamondbacks- Rio Ruiz- 3B- The D-backs have little depth at third and Ruiz could provide the club with a very good third base prospect. Ruiz has a great bat, instincts, and defense, and although he lacks premium speed, his other skills would be sufficient for him to turn out to be a great 3rd baseman for the club.
27) Detroit Tigers- David Dahl- OF- The Tigers are a little thin on OF depth and its current major league OF roster is decent, but not that great. Dahl could add some OF depth to the system and has solid tools across the board and could turn out to be an above- average outfielder.
28) Milwaukee Brewers- Kyle Zimmer- RHP- The Brewers farm system needs a lot of work, and could use some top of the rotation arms. Zimmer is a big-bodied, hard-throwing pitcher that Bruce Seid loves to draft and has some great stuff, including a fastball that can reach 97 with a nasty curveball. He also has a decent slider and changeup.
29) Texas Rangers- Jesse Winker- OF- Winker provides an excellent bat that could provide a high average and plenty of power and could fit in nicely with Cruz and Hamilton.
30) New York Yankees- Addison Russel- SS- The Yankees are aging and aging fast. Jeter isn't gonna last forever and neither will A-Rod. Addison Russel can provide a good SS for the club and if he doesn't stick at SS, he can always convert to third. He can provide good defense and has a great upside with the bat.
31) Boston Red Sox- Jake Barrett- RHP- Barrett has good stuff highlighted by an above-average fastball. If his mechanics cause him to convert to relief duty, he can be used to strengthen the club's bullpen, so he carries a decent value either way.
239 comments
|
3 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I like it.
Be ready to here some about Marrero being that far down. I got it when I posted mine about a month back, and there is good reasons for him to be high, but I am with you in the slipping.
the Padres
Are desperate for a SS… I have a hard time believing he’d slide past them.
-peter
by PeterF on Dec 30, 2011 10:02 PM EST via iPhone app up reply actions
Diekroger
is way too high, I don’t even think he’ll be a 1st rounder
Marrero, Correa, Cecchini, Russell, Jesmuel Valentin, then Diekroger
You could even argue Tanner Rahier or CJ Hinojosa over Diekroger
by Kapellmeisters on Dec 30, 2011 10:43 PM EST up reply actions
You could even argue Tanner Rahier or CJ Hinojosa over Diekroger
Agreed, which would have seemed heretical a year and a half ago. It’s fascinating how much KD has slid. OTOH, he has enough ability that he could turn himself back into a top guy, but I just have a hard time seeing him as a major league SS, so the bat is really going to have to come alive to make him interesting as a 2B.
by charles wallace on Dec 30, 2011 11:10 PM EST up reply actions
Yeah
Second base is the only viable infield position for Diekroeger, and his bat went backwards last year. He will need to make major strides offensively for me to view him as a potential first rounder.
Bullpen Banter
MLB Bonus Baby
Twitter Account: @Ioffridus
Hinojosa is an interesting player in this draft
Given the new signing caps, I don’t think he signs unless he is a top five pick, and I am not sure anyone seems him that high yet.
by cookiedabookie on Dec 31, 2011 11:00 AM EST up reply actions
also
i have a feeling that Williams could very well be drafted by the Braves (if he’s there). We rarely go over slot, but it’s not without precedent.
by JoelGuzman'sScout on Dec 26, 2011 1:14 PM EST up reply actions
To me
It seems like no one on this site is that crazy about Appel, he’s just continually mocked to Houston as almost a placeholder.
What is there to say?
He has three pitches that flash plus or better, and he needs to gain strength/consistency/command.
Bullpen Banter
MLB Bonus Baby
Twitter Account: @Ioffridus
I guess my big problem with him is
Can he miss bats consistently over the course of a full season? The scouting reports sound awesome, but let’s be honest, the results are a little underwhelming for somebody who is supposed to be a top of the draft guy.
This.
I wouldn’t be upset if Appel became the Astros pick, hell, I’d be thrilled if he is able to put together a great spring and realize his potential. But as it stands now, with Appel’s results so far, I’d much rather see them go after one of the top two HS players- Giolito or Buxton.
Cole and Appel
Cole H/9, K/9
Freshman: 6.04, 11.01
Sophomore: 6.73, 11.20
Junior: 8.11, 9.37
Appel H/9, K/9:
Freshman: 10.42, 6.16
Sophomore: 9.23, 7.16
Junior: ?
those are very interesting kupe
Appel seems like a better prospect, right now.
by JoelGuzman'sScout on Dec 26, 2011 5:38 PM EST up reply actions
LOL
I hope that was a joke JoelGuzman
Yoenis Cespedes
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aW9ge8l3jY8
by SteveHoffmanSlowey on Dec 26, 2011 7:21 PM EST up reply actions
There are a lot of similarities in my mind
Bullpen Banter
MLB Bonus Baby
Twitter Account: @Ioffridus
You think
Appel will be a borderline top 10 overall prospect in baseball a year from now?
by auclairkeithbc on Dec 26, 2011 3:49 PM EST up reply actions
Top 25 is realistic I'd say.
Much like with all the guys at the top of this draft, it all rests on what kind of spring he has.
Well, I have Cole at 19
I think Appel could be borderline top 10 if he takes the necessary steps forward this year.
Bullpen Banter
MLB Bonus Baby
Twitter Account: @Ioffridus
Like what?
His stuff is great – Check
Bit of a disappointment for the stats hounds – Check
Considered for the #1 overall pick – Check
I think it ends there though. Cole’s issue has always been command. Appel? He just seems to hittable. I have yet to see him pitch in person, but the stats make me think he is more of a Todd Van Poppel – a guy who has a straight fastball that any big leaguer can hit. Color me very worried about Appel – much moreso than Cole.
And that's why you shouldn't look at numbers
All of his pitches can miss bats, but they play down because he rarely has everything working at the same time and his command needs work. Like with Cole, I’m not convinced he’s an ace, but he certainly has the raw stuff to be one
Here are my notes on Appel from last year (the 3rd and 4th link are more detailed than the first two):
http://bullpenbanter.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=387:college-baseball-weekend1&catid=18:articles&Itemid=11#MarkAppel
http://bullpenbanter.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=388:college-baseball-weekend-02-observations&catid=18:articles&Itemid=11#MarkAppel
http://bullpenbanter.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=402:college-baseball-weekend-06-observations&catid=18:articles&Itemid=11#MarkAppel
http://bullpenbanter.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=411:college-baseball-weekend-10-observations&catid=18:articles&Itemid=11#MarkAppel
Bullpen Banter
MLB Bonus Baby
Twitter Account: @Ioffridus
sorry, but that's a little much
If you want to be careful with how much you read into the numbers that’s great, but it doesn’t make any sense at all to say “you shouldn’t look at numbers”. I could just as easily turn it around, point to what he’s actually done, and say (erroneously), “that’s why you shouldn’t concern yourself with scouting reports”.
Appel has a nice arm, but I do think caution is warranted when scouting reports and performance don’t match, even if it comes in the form of cautious optimism. Perhaps this is just the historian in me, but I believe the past does matter, balanced as it must be with projection.
Yes, I should have added in an adverb softening that statement
It was a reaction based off of the above analysis. I don’t think the numbers are surprising given what I’ve seen out of him, but I see no value in this kind of statement:
I have yet to see him pitch in person, but the stats make me think he is more of a Todd Van Poppel – a guy who has a straight fastball that any big leaguer can hit.
Bullpen Banter
MLB Bonus Baby
Twitter Account: @Ioffridus
FB is not straight
Lots of life on his pitches. Its really just command, feel, consistency and sequencing.
I shot a video of a pre-game bullpen of his on the Cape that lets you get a good look. Fantastic stuff and fantastic talent. Not a Van Poppel type getting by on just velo.
There are similarities and we've discussed the comp a bit in the past...
but Appel’s strengths are a half step behind Cole’s and Appel has been even more inconsistent.
I'm leaning toward hoping the Astros take Zunino
I was glad to see him mocked aggressively here at #2. He looks like the most complete college prospect right now, with the potential to become an impact player and the numbers to back it up. I guess there are some questions with the hit tool. He reminds me somewhat of George Springer from last year’s draft, except a catcher obviously.
http://www.crawfishboxes.com
I'm a big Zunino fan
He’ll chase off speed out of the zone, but he squares up pitches regularly (aside from Rendon, he was probably the most impressive hitter I saw last year – Westlake, Susac, and Springer were right there with him though). His swing is fairly simple so I don’t think the hit tool is a long term issue. His power mostly goes to his pull side, but it was still impressive. Defense is sound, and I look forward to watching more Florida games this year.
He’s my top college position player – perhaps my top position player in the entire draft.
Bullpen Banter
MLB Bonus Baby
Twitter Account: @Ioffridus
I've said before I think this is a realistic scenario...
BUT I think it would be a mistake from a value perspective. I really like Zunino, but barring some major adjustments this season he’d be one of the least talented 1:1 picks in recent memory. For Zunino to go first it means Appel and Gausman both had awful Springs or got hurt – and in that scenario if I’m the SD I think I’d rather take a prep talent like Giolito or Buxton than Zunino. Zunino is surely the safer bet and should be a very good major league catcher… but would you be happy taking Yasmani Grandal 1:1 when someone like Taillon/Jacob Turner was there? (forced comps, but I think you see what I’m getting at).
I think 1:1 is Appel and/or Gausman’s to lose right now, though.
Agree with pretty much all of this
I have Giolito, Appel, Gausman, Marrero, and Buxton all ahead of Zunino personally.
by cookiedabookie on Dec 30, 2011 1:40 PM EST up reply actions
I'd go
Giolito
Gausman
Appel
Zunino
Buxton
I get what you’re saying Al, but couldn’t that be said for Marrero as well? You’re giving up some upside to gain better odds of actualization and still getting a guy who could be a well above-average regular. He would be a very defensible selection at 1.1 even if it wouldn’t be the way I would go.
Bullpen Banter
MLB Bonus Baby
Twitter Account: @Ioffridus
Definitely could go for Marrero, too...
Didn’t I just send you my latest draft board a couple days ago? : )
Wait you have a draft board?
No Way! Me too! Cool.
Haha...
I keep a 1st round rough order at this point and then loosely organized tiers with notes. Last year we published our draft boards pre draft over at BB. I think we’re going to publish an early board fairly soon (Feb? After we’re done with our team lists & top 100 stuff.
Appel's numbers and to a lesser extent Gausman's really, really worry me.
I think basically what Appel has done to this point has been terrible, relatively speaking. Why on earth is he not striking people out in college ball if he’s such a strong candidate to go first overall?
I can sort of see the Grandal comparison for Zunino. I think he has more power though, enough that it’s really noticeable. Do you think Zunino can be a Brian McCann type player? Perhaps with better fielding, since the scouting reports on his glove and arm are so strong?
http://www.crawfishboxes.com
I don't think I would put a Brian McCann comp on anyone
That’s setting the bar too high for my taste. The prospect would have to be in the Harper/Strasburg/Moore/Trout mold to go that strong.
Bullpen Banter
MLB Bonus Baby
Twitter Account: @Ioffridus
Not that WAR is anywhere near perfect for catchers
But McCann has “only” been a 4-5 WAR player each year over the course of his career so far. I was under the impression that his defense was just passable though, and that it hurt his value a bit. Of course, as a catcher he’s also not getting 650 PA.
http://www.crawfishboxes.com
That's a lot of value for a ~135 game player
The rigors of catching makes hitters of McCann’s caliber rare. I think he’s closer to an average defender than a poor one.
Bullpen Banter
MLB Bonus Baby
Twitter Account: @Ioffridus
Yeah, I understand he's an amazing player
I just feel a guy who is a candidate for 1-1 should have, at least, the ceiling of being a star player like McCann. Maybe Zunino isn’t actually that guy. I don’t know.
http://www.crawfishboxes.com
That was kind of my objection.
I don’t think McCann ceiling is there. He’s not going to hit for a high AVG, for one.
Most of the guys up top do have issues right now that would make me less than thrilled to take them 1:1, though. Should clear up over the next few months.
Let's be clear here
Brian McCann has been the second best catcher in baseball over the last 5 years behind only Joe Mauer. If he continues to hit the way that he has deep into his career, he will be a legitimate hall-of-fame candidate. I think that’s a very high comp to put on any player.
Bullpen Banter
MLB Bonus Baby
Twitter Account: @Ioffridus
Eh
as everyone here knows, the draft is still 6 months and an entire spring season away. Someone (or maybe two or three guys) will step up and prove themselves “worthy” of being the 1-1 guy.
FWIW, I like Giolito. Not sure if a HS pitcher will go 1-1, but I really like him.
by McCutchenIsTheTruth on Dec 30, 2011 6:45 PM EST up reply actions
thanks for this
It really makes the mock for me.
Not actually affiliated with whygavs.
by WHYG Zane Smith on Dec 29, 2011 12:07 AM EST up reply actions
i think Giolito will end up going #1 when all said and done.
obviously you get some hyperbole with these guys, but Giolito sounds and looks freakin awesome.
R.I.P. cwhitman412, Frederick0220, & Mets2k9
http://twitter.com/doublestix
Some players missing
Wondering where you see them going, or why they were outside the first round:
Jesmuel Valentin Diaz
Lewis Brinson
Josh Elander
Marcus Stroman
Also, players that look at bit high to me, although I would have them drafted by the end of the first round supplemental:
Matt Smoral
Kyle Zimmer
Addison Russell
Actually, Russell is the only one that I am really puzzled by. Not sure why the Yankees would want to draft him unless they are losing confidence in Culver, and I don’t think that is the case at this point. They have been going position-heavy in the last few drafts, and it wouldn’t surprise me to pop an arm in the first round – maybe Stroman, Ty Hensley, or Duane Underwood.
Smoral
has been getting “best LHP in class” buzz from some notable sources since his showing at Jupiter to end the summer. I’m not the biggest fan of the delivery as it currently stands, but there’s nothing that can’t be fixed, he’s projectable, and he already has good present stuff and some feel. I like what I’ve seen of Fried (a lot) but Smoral is in the mix.
by charles wallace on Dec 26, 2011 9:05 PM EST up reply actions
he's committed to UNC
and we’ve got a pretty good track record with HS Pitchers.
Plus, Cherry is too. That’s a BIG rotation.
by JoelGuzman'sScout on Dec 31, 2011 9:42 AM EST up reply actions
I'll be very surprised
if Smoral, Cherry and Porter all make it to UNC, though it’s a fond wish of mine, as seeing all of them hook up with Emanuel would be a thing of beauty. I think Porter could very well make it, as he’s pretty raw, and he’s a two-way guy with some questions. If Cherry is still sitting 92 all next spring then he’s a candidate to drop and make it to school, but if he ticks up then he’ll get serious top half of first consideration with his advanced delivery and feel. If I’m a pro team looking at him or Smoral I want to get them signed and into development asap. Both guys could move quickly with professional instruction.
by charles wallace on Jan 1, 2012 4:47 PM EST up reply actions
Diaz and Brinson could be in the first round, and the next time I make another mock draft they may very well be in it
If I made a supplemental round mock, then Brinson and Diaz would have been taken early in the round.
As for Stroman, despite his great stuff he doesn’t project to be more than a power reliever. At the earliest I think he’ll be taken in the supplemental round, but I wouldn’t be surprised if he was taken in the 2nd round.
Smoral is a tall, projectable lefty, and although he’s gonna be a project, the ceiling is there. He also has plenty of time to refine his stuff.
Zimmer has good stuff and decent polish, and I see your reasoning for thinking that he would be drafted in the supplemental, but he seems promising enough to be taken in the late 1st round.
As for Russell, I honestly forgot about Culver and Bichette. But with his promising bat and defense, I think he would be taken in the late 1st or early supplemental round.
Go ahead, make my day.
by ilikeburritos on Dec 26, 2011 9:22 PM EST up reply actions
I know Stroman is short
But I think he could stay a starter. His stuff is pretty filthy.
But good insight, thanks!
by cookiedabookie on Dec 27, 2011 10:48 AM EST up reply actions
"I think he could stay a starter."
That puts you in the minority based on some trusted sources, and these are guys who think he’s a first rounder as a reliever FWIW.
by charles wallace on Dec 27, 2011 8:02 PM EST up reply actions
No, I agree the consensus is reliever
But I always want to push a college arm as a starter first, especially with his type of stuff. Worse case, he fails and goes back to the pen. Mid-case, he gets extra innings to prepare for the ML-pen (think K-Rod). And best case, he turns into a good MLB starter. Not really much to lose.
by cookiedabookie on Dec 27, 2011 10:23 PM EST up reply actions
Generally they will be pushed,
but I’m saying I’ve spoken with people who are saying there’s no way he starts. This isn’t Chad Bettis or Ty Thornburg or Sonny Gray where people are divided. I was surprised, but these scouts are convinced, and they’re completely independent sources.
by charles wallace on Dec 28, 2011 12:52 PM EST up reply actions
Interesting
Maybe I will have to reassess him at this spot. Hensley, Underwood, or Kelly would be nice picks at this spot as well, and as high schoolers have more time to develop in the minors.
by cookiedabookie on Dec 28, 2011 2:12 PM EST up reply actions
Definitely with you on Underwood
Like you, I think he may get first round consideration if he has a strong spring. One of the top velo guys on the HS, but the breaking ball and change look really promising too. One of my favorite guys at PGAAC this year.
by charles wallace on Dec 28, 2011 9:41 PM EST up reply actions
Forgot to mention Carson Kelly as an option
Kind of reminds me of Phil Hughes (body, repertoire) though not quite as good.
by cookiedabookie on Dec 27, 2011 11:40 AM EST up reply actions
Buxton vs. Starling
This is a question I have asked myself, so I decided to do some more research. Using the 5-tools approach:
- Speed – Buxton > Starling – Buxton is rated by many as a 70+ runner and even though Starling is very fast himself, he does not match Buxton. Also looked at some football film to help with this.
- Arm – Buxton = Starling – For both players these are already top notch tools. Both HS Quarterbacks, Buxton hits 94 off the mound as well.
- Glove – Starling > Buxton – Starling, while not quite as fast, seems to instinctively take better routes than Buxton, but both have the range to be great in CF
- Hitting – Buxton > Starling – Buxton’s swing is more consistent at this point in time and he does a good job letting the ball get deep due to his quick swing which allows him to recognize pitches pretty well. Both still are working on plate discipline although Buxton is ahead at this point
- Power – Buxton = Starling – Both are well built and have great bodies for muscle. Both put on shows at Wrigley. Both look poised to potentially hit 30 HR’s a year. Yet both play CF, and will stay there. Really impressive
- Overall – It is extremely close but I am leaning Buxton slightly over Starling on this one.
I would love to here other peoples thoughts as well.
by tarheels24 on Dec 26, 2011 8:24 PM EST reply actions 2 recs
Agree
Buxton should (and will) be drafted higher than #5 overall
by Kapellmeisters on Dec 30, 2011 10:45 PM EST up reply actions
Interesting
that none of the mocks I’ve seen recently have proposed Hinojosa as a first rounder now that he’s eligible for the draft again. Not sure whether that means people are overlooking him, or don’t consider him first round caliber. He still seems pretty committed to Texas, but if he has another good season at Klein Collins then he’ll get some interest.
by charles wallace on Dec 26, 2011 9:11 PM EST reply actions
Haven't researched much about Hinojosa so I don't know much about him.
I’m gonna research some more as soon as I find the time.
Go ahead, make my day.
by ilikeburritos on Dec 26, 2011 9:24 PM EST up reply actions
He'll definitely be a tough sign,
and I think the strong commit could definitely cause teams to pass, especially with Correa, JV-D, Rahier, and Cecchini available on the HS side, and Marrero and Fontana from college. I could see a team or two falling for him, though. Very, very smooth player and I think he’s got some power potential.
by charles wallace on Dec 27, 2011 8:09 PM EST up reply actions
The new draft rules makes him an interesting test case
He seems to be the toughest sign amongst the top HS players right now (more will certainly come out as we approach June but right now, he’s the toughest that I see).
Bullpen Banter
MLB Bonus Baby
Twitter Account: @Ioffridus
Really
like this draft. Hope Marrero lasts that long, but I doubt it.
My dream is that the Pirates draft Correa #8 and then the Pirates can find two solid college guys (arms or bats) that can move quickly in the supplemental round.
by McCutchenIsTheTruth on Dec 26, 2011 10:08 PM EST reply actions
The HS kids
look pretty intriguing. The college crop is the antithesis of 2011 though, and that’s really going to limit things past Day One. Correa is absolutely one of my favorites of the HS kids. Much better P.R. group than usual.
by charles wallace on Dec 27, 2011 8:11 PM EST up reply actions
your "I doubt it"
comment rings true to me… With the Padres lack of depth at SS combined with their emerging young talent, I can’t see them passing on the ASU SS.
-peter
by PeterF on Dec 30, 2011 10:07 PM EST via iPhone app up reply actions
I have a quick comment from a Mets fan's perspective
I know this draft is very early so it is hard to know what exactly any team’s philosophy on the draft will be. This draft in general though seems to be focused on organizational need which is probably not the way most teams would draft. For example for the Mets you based their pick on the fact that they lost Jose Reyes so they would most likely pick a SS. This strategy doesn’t account that the draft is basically a lottery ticket and there are more effective ways of filling needs at the major league level.
My point is I would rather see just a ranking of the best ameture talent entering the draft than what each team might potentially pick because as someone who admittedly doesn’t know much about ameture talent before they play in the minors I want to see what’s really out there. As a Mets fan I would rather see them draft in this order:
1. The best pitching talent on the board (because because everyone always needs more pitching)
2. The best hitting talent regardless of position (a very close second to pitching because of the volatility of pitching prospects)
3. Organizational weakness in the farm system, not on the 25 man roster which in the Mets case would be Catchers and not SS or MI.
I would be pretty upset if the Mets used their first round pick on the third best SS simply to make up for Jose Reyes if there were potentially better players available.
FWIW
I think Correa is gonna be special. Definitely ahead of Diekroeger on my board, and I like Diekroeger.
by McCutchenIsTheTruth on Dec 27, 2011 6:55 PM EST up reply actions
I have him ahead of KD too,
as I’m not convinced KD is a SS long term. Correa could well end up at 3B, but he’s got a chance to be a special bat. He’s got a lot of sock already and he’s not even close to done growing.
by charles wallace on Dec 27, 2011 8:14 PM EST up reply actions
Yep
I think he can stay at SS. I’m still going back and forth between him and Buxton, but right now I like Correa as my #1 high school bat.
Love the kid. He’s ridiculously young too.
by McCutchenIsTheTruth on Dec 27, 2011 10:45 PM EST up reply actions
The actions at SS
looked good in the showcase games and video I’ve seen. I can certainly see why some folks think he’ll outgrow the position though.
by charles wallace on Dec 28, 2011 12:53 PM EST up reply actions
Oh
ya. Wiry right now, but the frame to grow into a big kid. Though, if Hanley can play SS (albeit poorly) then Correa can too
by McCutchenIsTheTruth on Dec 28, 2011 8:52 PM EST up reply actions
The guy
who always comes to mind for me is Jhonny Peralta. I do think if Correa sticks he’d be a better SS than HanRam. I know Ramirez is a popular example of a “big” SS who’s made it, but I wouldn’t really use him as a source of optimism or anything approaching a rule. There are people with two pack a day habits and a drinking problem who live to be 100 too.
by charles wallace on Dec 28, 2011 10:00 PM EST up reply actions
"This draft in general though seems to be focused on organizational need which is probably not the way most teams would draft."
True.
The average from draft to major league regular is about four years.
Using your example, the Mets should have been focusing on Jose Reyes’ possible replacement in 2008 or at the latest 2009.
If you wait until 2012 to draft a replacement for a guy who’s already gone, then you probably need a new Scouting Director.
Yeah, there are some issues I need to address the next time I work on a mock
including going with the “best player available” theory.
Go ahead, make my day.
by ilikeburritos on Dec 27, 2011 1:25 PM EST up reply actions
To be clear
I would have no problems with the Mets drafting a SS with their first pick if that were the best player available. It’s not completely wrong to base your mock draft on organizational need, but I would look at organizational need with regard to the farm system since it takes so long for players to mature. For example if a team needed a certain position player to make a playoff run they would try to fill it through trades or FA (Cardinals lost Pujols so they moved Berkman to 1B and replaced him with Beltran in RF)
The Mets biggest organizational need right now is Catching. They have an average at best Catcher in Thole at the major league level and absolutely no one in the minors. You have a potential 5-tool catcher going 9 picks down to the Braves.
It’s hard to do that much research to know what each organization really needs. So thanks for your effort it was still a good read.
by crazycarLUXC on Dec 27, 2011 1:50 PM EST up reply actions
I'm a little confused by your response for a few reasons
1. My example has nothing to do with finding a Jose Reyes replacement. It is nearly impossible to find a replacement for one of the top SS in all of baseball. My example argues that a team should draft to gain the most value. In the first round of the draft especially it should not matter at all what positions you need to replace at the Major league level down the road. If your team might need a SS in a few years and you’re set at OF, but there is a Bryce Harper or a Mike Trout on the board I’m pretty sure you wouldn’t want your team to draft the SS.
2. In this mock draft there are two SS taken before the Met’s pick. As I said before I’m no ameture scout and this could very well be a deep year for SS, but just as a guess I would say there is some better value still out there.
3. I’m pretty sure in 2008 the Mets did not expect to either trade or let their superstar SS walk in free agency while still in his prime so I don’t know how you would fire your scouting director for not having that foresight.
I’m not sure wether you were arguing against my comment or not, but maybe this clears up my statements a little bit.
by crazycarLUXC on Dec 27, 2011 1:35 PM EST up reply actions
This actually
is an interesting year for SS, though it’s hard to say with certainty, especially with HS kids, whether or not they’ll stick. Most of these guys (Russell, Rahier, Correa, Cecchini, Valentin-Diaz) seem like they’d have enough bat to profile at 3B or 2B if necessary. Marrero and Fontana are locks as major league SS.
by charles wallace on Dec 27, 2011 8:18 PM EST up reply actions
Stephen Perez looks like an MLB SS
He was very impressive defensively when I saw him last year. Not sure how much he’ll hit, but I think I like him a bit more than the consensus.
Bullpen Banter
MLB Bonus Baby
Twitter Account: @Ioffridus
Definitely
Not sure how much Fontana will hit either, so they’re cut from the same cloth I suppose.
by charles wallace on Dec 28, 2011 12:54 PM EST up reply actions
Speed: Both are currently 70+ runners (Starling’s run a 4.29 40), but as they both age and fill out Buxton will likely lose more speed because he’s thicker below his waist naturally. Buxton is listed at 6’2" but is actually a touch less than 6’1" and is heavier now than Starling despite being four inches shorter. Current ratings are even, major league projections favor Starling.
Arm: Both are rated highly for raw arm strength but below average overall due to their football backgrounds. The throwing motion and mechanics for an outfielder are different than for a quarterback and both must basically learn how to throw all over again. Buxton projects as a CF or LF, whereas Starling as a CF or RF. Currently even, major league projection favor Starling.
Defense: Current Buxton, major league projection Starling. Buxton may not be a CF as a pro, Starling will move to right only as he loses speed as he gets older, picture a Ken Griffey Jr situation with him.
Hitting: Buxton is more advanced now because of Starling’s high school commitment to both football and basketball, leaving him less time to work on baseball drills. The thought process at the time of the draft was Starling’s natural ability would take over and once he focused full time on baseball his raw hitting skills would catch up to his other tools. Current, Buxton, major league projection even, leaning to advantage Starling.
Power: Current Buxton, major league projection Buxton.
Overall: At the same stage of their careers as high school seniors, Buxton has a slight advantage because he’s played more baseball, but Starling is such a freakishly gifted athlete that he will continue to get better even as a major leaguer, whereas Buxton’s ceiling isn’t as high.
Buxton is the best high school prospect in this draft, put Starling in this draft and he’s the best prospect period.
4.29
There is no chance he runs a legit 4.29 40. That may be published somewhere but look at the NFL draft combine. Every year 1 or less prospect runs that fast. 4.4-4.5 is likely and still very fast
by VanillaGorilla on Dec 27, 2011 6:14 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
Yeah he's listed as a 4.5 guy on recruiting sites
And generally those times are on the low side if they didn’t come at a combine (and his didn’t).
Ya
Chris Johnson ran what.. a 4.24 I believe.
by McCutchenIsTheTruth on Dec 27, 2011 6:55 PM EST up reply actions
According to who?
I’m sorry, but there is no way I’m buying that recruiting sites are over 2 tenths off on his 40 time. If he posted a time that good, he would have been a top 20 football prospect in the entire country, not a guy who didn’t crack the top 100.
" he would have been a top 20 football prospect in the entire country, not a guy who didn’t crack the top 100."
What are you smoking?
Starling was the sixth ranked QB and #30 overall prospect heading into his senior season.
Why would you only look at rankings going into his senior season?
And I think my point is proven
You’re relying on a random post on a betting website for the 40 time and on MaxPreps for his recruiting ranking (ignoring what are considered to be the big 3).
I was able to find other mentions of the 40 time
Definitely not buying it. Its a claim his high school coach made, but respectable recruiting sites had access to that claim and they clearly don’t believe it. Besides, if he had that sort of speed, he would have actually run at a recognized combine, as it would have given him far more leverage in contract negotiations with an MLB team.
"And I think my point is proven"
It’s not.
He ran a 4.36 once.
That’s all it takes.
It’s like throwing 100, it only takes once to be a member of the club.
Starling’s been clocked at 4.31 to first base which is legit plus speed for a righthander.
Good enough for me.
"He ran a 4.36 once"...according to his coach
No major recruiting outlet believed his coach enough to publish anything close to that as his 40 time and he never ran at a major combine, even though almost every other major recruit (especially guys with legit 4.4 speed) does.
And no one is doubting whether or not he has legit plus speed. What we’re doubting is the 40 time that would make him a legit 80 runner. 4.36 is insane speed. There are less than 10 guys who have done that at the NFL combine over the past 3 years, and those are grown men who have spent months training for that single event.
Was that ever a question?
People were simply doubting the crazy 40 time you quoted for Starling without a source. The time you quoted implied 80 speed, not simply plus speed.
Also, not sure why you would say there you go
That was the first time you said anything about plus speed with regard to Starling. Prior to that you mentioned him being faster than Buxton while mentioning a 40 time that equates to 80 speed. Why are you surprised that people questioned you? Do you think Starling has 80 speed?
Couple questions...
1. What happened to the 4.29 claim? You claim that was handtimed, but who hand-timed it and where are you getting it from?
2. What did you mean by “officially electronically timed”? What makes it “official”? I’ve seen no indication it happened at a combine (which would make it official IMO). Also, electronically timed is misleading for a 40, because people think of electronically timed in terms of track and field where it is completely accurate. That isn’t the case in the 40 because there is no exact “start”. The clock starts when a human starts it and stops electronically. It is still prone to user error since a human is determining when the runner starts.
A little advice, Nixa
You want evidence, that’s what Google is for.
Unless you’re willing to start paying me to do your research, please show some respect and do it yourself.
I showed the 4.36 source, which you clearly didn’t try and find yourself, and you’ve chosen not to accept it as valid.
Not sure I do either after re-reading it again, but it’s there.
I couldn’t find the 4.29, but I’ve been aware of Starling since he was fifteen, so it could have been a couple of years ago.
But the key was “hand-timed”, so right there you would be within your rights to ignore it.
I don’t mind your questions, but common sense and/or effort would prevent most of them.
thanks.
by Kelsdad on Dec 28, 2011 1:06 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Seriously?
You were the one making claims about official times. You should be the one providing a source. If we were talking about a well known fact or something, sure you don’t need one, but when you’re claiming Starling ran a much faster 40 than major website has him at, you should be the one backing it up. You can’t just make outlandish claims (and the 4.29 claim was pretty outlandish) and not expect people to ask you to back it up.
fwiw
This article clarifies the 4.36 time a bit. It cites Starling’s HS football coach on that time, recorded prior to his junior football season.
Yeah that's what I eventually found
If his coach told that newspaper, I’m sure he told the same thing to the major recruiting services, but none of them were buying it. The prevalence of claims like these are the reason major football combines have become so prevalent across the nation. You had every major high school program claiming they had multiple sub 4.4 guys. If Starling was legitimately that fast, you would have to think he would have run at a combine, right? It would only help his leverage. I could have actually bought him choosing college over the draft if he was that fast, as he could have ended up a high first round pick with that size/speed combo.
That's how football has gotten around the 40 problem
Instead of having football coaches make unverifiable claims about how fast their players are, they now have large combines where a third party will do all of the timing and report the results to schools and the major recruiting websites. Its something just about every major football prospect goes through these days. If Starling actually had 4.36 speed, why did he choose not attend a combine? If he had run that fast, it would have only served to raise his leverage when it came time to negotiate with MLB teams because him choosing to play football would have been a more realistic threat (as is he wasn’t ever going to be drafted in the NFL as a QB and he had little chance of ever getting drafted in the first round at another position if he “only” had 4.5 speed like everyone was saying).
Starling's a baseball player.
There was no reason for him to attend a combine.
He already had a scholarship in his pocket, so there’s no justifiable reason for him to do so.
There was never a chance he was going to college.
And baseball players run 60’s, not 40’s.
Like I said, it would give him more leverage
There would be no reason not to if you could actually run a 4.36, as that would have made him one of the 5 fastest players in the nation among SPARQ combine attendees in 2011. It could have easily secured him a couple extra million in his contract because there would have been an actual threat that he could earn more in football down the line. Why wouldn’t he run if he was actually that fast?
Obviously baseball players run 60s, not 40s. Why would you even mention that? You’re the one who brought up 40 times in this thread, not me. If you had simply quoted a 60 time on Starling, instead of a 40 time that you clearly seem to have made up, we wouldn’t have ever had this discussion in the first place.
Research is your friend.
I made the 4.36 statement, so that makes me the source.
If you don’t believe it, it’s up to you to do the work, like mrkupe did.
He had no trouble finding it, and he doesn’t look like a troll.
Really?
So anyone can just say anything then, and its up to other people to prove them wrong? Okay, Andrelton Simmons runs a 4.1 40 yard dash. He’s the fastest person on the planet outside of Usain Bolt. I won’t cite anyone else, because I can serve as my own source. Try to prove me wrong.
Do you see how things fail when people think they can serve as their own source for a fact? Have you ever written a research paper or anything like that? I honestly can’t understand how anyone could think its okay to cite yourself as a source for anything.
Starling was cited in Arizona for underage drinking
You now have two choices,
1) You can believe it, understanding the research has been done, or;
2) Use your own resources in an attempt to confirm or not.
That’s how things work.
This is a pointless argument
Obviously I did the research myself, as you can see in this post. Generally though, if you make a claim like that, if someone asks for a source, you’ll provide it. At least that’s how people around here generally operate. 40 times aren’t always easy to find outside of recruiting websites, which is why I asked in the first place. After finding it myself, I let you know.
"At least that’s how people around here generally operate."
Funny how there’s always one guy who thinks the accepted rules of conversation don’t apply him. Unfortunately it’s not even particularly entertaining in this case. Ignore him.
by charles wallace on Dec 28, 2011 10:04 PM EST up reply actions
I wished I'd ignored this entire exchange
What’s done is done though.
"Have you ever written a research paper or anything like that?"
You really didn’t go there, right?
Writing a two paragraph comment on a blog is about as far from being a research paper as you can get.
Good idea to stop now, you’re getting ridiculous.
You get the last word, you win, nice talking to you.
Wow
You're not very good at reading comprehension either
As was abundantly clear in that post, I was talking about your ridiculous take on what constitutes a source. Anyone with a modicum of experience writing a research paper knows that you can’t cite yourself as a source. That is just a ridiculous position to take.
I'm not writing a research paper
so the reference was idiotic to begin with.
Again, nice talking with you.
It's an example of when you use sources
One that I figure the vast majority of people are familiar with. The idea that you can just use yourself as a source is insane, but then again, maybe that’s why you thought you could get away with making up the 4.29 40 time.
Keeping on the Starling vs. Buxton
Buxton has been timed 3.9-4.1 at summer showcase events. Ridiculously fast.
Link: http://rise.espn.go.com/baseball/articles/2011/09/14-Byron-Buxton.aspx
Interesting view.
I don’t know where you have seen the height thing on Buxton but the things I have seen have him at 6’1 175 versus Starling’s 6’5 195. That actually is the EXACT same BMI. Find that coincidental.
Defense from what I have seen had Starling as having the better instincts.
Hitting, I agree Buxton has the edge now, but I don’t see how Starling will pass him. It is possible, but Buxton does still have a year in High School to improve plus they’re both tremendously athletic. I see them about the same, advantage Buxton.
Power wise I agree.
And then Arm wise I lean Buxton as he has been pitching, like Starling did before his senior year. Really I don’t see much of a difference.
Overall I think they are very similar, but I slightly lean Buxton. I am not so sure he isn’t the best prospect in the draft. Which could have been argued for Starling last year as well.
Man
forgot how huge Starling is. I agree. Slight lean Buxton, although I like Correa ahead of Buxton as far as high school bats go.
by McCutchenIsTheTruth on Dec 27, 2011 10:46 PM EST up reply actions
That's interesting.
Bat I could see, although again it’s close, but I feel Buxton is safer to stay in CF versus Correa at SS, so overall I have a lean Buxton.
That being said I do think there is a lot of high school talent available. It will be interesting to see how it plays with the new regulations.
I
really buy into that research done on players that are extremely young, and Correa is the youngest high school bat in mlb.com’s top 50.
Kid is 10 months younger than Buxton.
Check here for some more details on why I like Correa so much.
by McCutchenIsTheTruth on Dec 28, 2011 8:55 PM EST up reply actions
I thought Trey Williams was younger?
PG has him as 3/9/95
Bullpen Banter
MLB Bonus Baby
Twitter Account: @Ioffridus
mlb.com
has him at 3/9/94. /shrug
by McCutchenIsTheTruth on Dec 28, 2011 11:29 PM EST up reply actions
Perhaps
I do find it interesting how elusive a correct birth date often is.
Bullpen Banter
MLB Bonus Baby
Twitter Account: @Ioffridus
Yep
crazy in today’s day and age.
by McCutchenIsTheTruth on Dec 28, 2011 11:47 PM EST up reply actions
I see the '94 DOB more often,
but there are really only one or two places that seem to post dates. I’m not sure it makes much of a difference with him. Best 3B prospect in the draft?
by charles wallace on Dec 28, 2011 11:50 PM EST up reply actions
No, it doesn't matter much to me
He’s definitely the top 3rd baseman on my board right now, and one of the top couple prep hitters.
Bullpen Banter
MLB Bonus Baby
Twitter Account: @Ioffridus
I'm
not disagreeing that Williams is a hell of a prospect. Curious though, do you not put much weight into this stuff (here and here)?
That research, although I do think the sample size is still fairly small despite what the author says, seems to indicate that Williams’s stock should be lowered a substantial bit (although not enough to take him out of the top 15 right now) if he was born in 94 compared to 95.
This is why I’m hesitant about Josh Bell. Love that the Pirates got him, but the reason he’s so advanced could be because he’s a year older than most of his competition. To me, that means his polish is to be expected more than it is a positive attribute (although it is both).
by McCutchenIsTheTruth on Dec 29, 2011 1:37 PM EST up reply actions
the value of that research remains awfully vague
There’s definitely no hard-and-fast modifier that should be applied.
No, I don't
It’s kind of interesting historical research but you cannot apply class trends to an individual. We’re not dealing with homogenous players so I just don’t see the utility.
Bullpen Banter
MLB Bonus Baby
Twitter Account: @Ioffridus
yeah
we should never apply class trends to an individual
so when we see a guy with plus stuff we should never consider that he might have success as a pitcher because of that plus stuff because prior pitchers with similar plus stuff had success
scouting obviously has no utility whatsoever because class trends are meaningless because players are not homogenous
by blue bulldog on Dec 29, 2011 2:16 PM EST up reply actions
You can apply them
but don’t expect them to bear any kind of useful fruit.
You’re talking about 17-20 year old kids with unsettled tools and who are still growing into their bodies. Their future success and growth depends on a billion different factors – not just whether they were born a month before a fellow draftee.
I disagree with it...
because its confusing correlation with causation. Players who are young for their class and drafted highly are drafted highly because of their exceptional talent. Its absolutely ridiculous to argue their age made the difference – which is the jist of that conclusion. An extra few months of development time didn’t change any of these kids’ tools. Interesting, but ultimately not useful at all. Obviously talent plays a much larger factor than a few months of age – simply ranking players by age or taking the youngest draftable player would be a terrible approach.
you totally didn't understand
the point of the research
first of all, nothing in his research suggested at all that you should “simply rank players by age and take the youngest draftable player”. the entire gist of his research was that younger players are under-drafted, and older players are over-drafted relative to their draft position. there is nothing at all that suggests a younger player is inherently better than an older player.
if anything, the research shows that the scouts or whoever is attempting to analyze the talent level of these high schoolers before drafting, is either subconsciously or consciously overvaluing “ability” that is simply due to inherently being older as opposed to a projected “ability” based on players individual tools
a different way of putting it, is that scouts are not consciously taking into account the fact that a younger player’s tools may not be manifested as obviously as an older player’s tools due to a few months of age
by blue bulldog on Dec 29, 2011 4:19 PM EST up reply actions
+1 a million
. . and Im only one person.
the point is to me, that age is someting that needs to be looked at more as a factor because it can’t be seen with the naked eye necessarily.
It is interesting how rthe researches findings so offend some and, are just dismissed. Weird.
Happy Holliday's everybody. Be safe and, enjoy! - Case
one of the problems is, it takes a hammer where a scalpel is needed
It’s unclear what types of players, or perhaps what types of traits, may be under/overvalued due to age. Further research is needed . . .for example, it might end up being the case that slugger types are overdrafted, while glove-first players are underdrafted (I have no clue about either really, just hypothetical examples). For the moment, my reaction was “oh, that’s nice . . .but how does this really change things?”
so a GM
can go to his scouts and say “look, historically, we seem to be overdrafting old high school hitters, and underdrafting young high school hitters. when you go out and evaluate high schoolers, actually consciously think about whether some guy is just out-shining his peers because his body is six months more physically developed, instead of just assuming he’s out-shining his peers because the talent level is there”
you’d be amazed how much consciously being aware of a problem can alleviate said problem
I likely wouldn't be, but
Conscious awareness of a problem can also obviously contribute to new problems.
Again, a general modifier wouldn’t seem to be terribly useful. There are perhaps aspects of younger high school players that are being undervalued, but there are likely also aspects that are overvalued. The net result might suggest that these players are, as a group, undervalued, but applying this finding forward may well prove disastrous for an organization. Seeing as age doesn’t really seem to be that meaningful unless it’s combined with other factors, the extent of the importance of age as an independent factor remains subject to debate.
this sounds
more like an excuse not to use new and better information
at the very least, it should tell GM’s to go and research which factors are undervalued or overvalued
You don't think they already do?
And there is basically no use of this information other than using it as a tiebreaker between guys you rank equally.
"You don't think they already do?"
Exactly. Most of the people who are excited about this seem to be under the impression that this has been a blind spot for most teams, which is a rank assumption.
by charles wallace on Jan 1, 2012 4:52 PM EST up reply actions
er
you do realize
the fact that teams have historically overdrafted and underdrafted these players means that it is a blind spot for most teams
people always assume that “professionals” are always at the forefront of their own industries, and are making the best decisions. that, unfortunately, is never the case.
Historically and currently aren't the same
His study says that this WAS a blind spot for most teams. It says absolutely nothing about whether or not this IS a blind spot for teams. You seem like an intelligent guy, so I have to think you realize that much.
And honestly, my point was mostly about you claiming that teams need to start researching what is over and under valued. Like I said, most of them already due to at least some degree. Even a team like the Braves that seemingly shunned stats was smart enough to realize that the old draft and follow system was something that teams were completely undervaluing (basically getting a 1 year option on a guy so you can get more information before making an offer). I mean, even the teams that don’t due heavy statistical stuff put a lot of emphasis on evaluating the performance of scouts and trying to find out their strengths and weak spots. If you really think teams aren’t always trying to get an advantage over their opponents, I don’t know what to tell you.
there is always a time lag
for a study like this
that doesn’t mean the same problems prevalent five to ten years ago, aren’t still problems today
of course teams are slowly (and i emphasize slowly) beginning to take advantage of new information. industries evolve very slowly, and baseball isn’t unique (if anything, it’s probably worse than other industries). part of this stems from the mere difficult of firing people who’s ideas are outdated, simply because they’ve been there for so long, and contributed so much in the past.
and of course teams are always trying to get an advantage over their opponents. that doesn’t mean they are particularly adept at doing so. look at all the terrible signings/trades that occur every year. there’d be a lot fewer of them, if pure attempts at maximizing return on investments were universally applied. i’m sure Kevin Towers thinks he’s “getting an advantage over his opponents” by signing Jason Kubel to a two-year $15 million-ish deal.
seriously though. some of the brightest minds and hardest workers worked at Lehman and Bear Stearns (heck, Andrew Friedman used to work there). those guys were always doing their best to get an advantage over their opponents. and yet you still saw what happened.
i just think it’s too much to assume that these problems have been solved today, just because teams in general are trying to improve their methodology
"His study says that this WAS a blind spot for most teams. It says absolutely nothing about whether or not this IS a blind spot for teams. "
Yep. And I’ve seen several pundits remark (and got the same feedback from a couple of sources) that many teams have made this adjustment.
by charles wallace on Jan 2, 2012 2:52 PM EST up reply actions
interesting discussion
I do think it means something, sure there are a TON of factors to take into account when evaluating a player and where he should be drafted based on talent, skills, athleticsm ect. But more often then not the players drafted in a similar range in a draft the younger player is almost always the better bet. Considering the context, they’re similar both positionally and skill wise.
That is why Freddie Freeman, for example, should have been a much higher rated prospect coming into last year, than Rizzo, Alonso, Matt Adams, B. Allen ect..
simply because at the same AAA level, he was ascertaining his skills at a much younger age with similar production at against the same, or close to same competition.
Therefore, unless his power potential was substantially less on the 20-80 scale (Which in Freemans case it wasn’t) Freeman is a better bet than any of the above mentioned going forward. (which other than a Hosmer i believe Freeman is the next best 1B.)
Freeman over Smoke too.
that is a wide range of skills, players, talent equivalent outcomes?
Yes
but i thought that was exactly the point of the Research; was taking all of that into the context (widening the range of players), Young similar 1B, with similar power potential and overall outcome. A very broad based outline of guys in any particular draft.
Yoenis Cespedes
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aW9ge8l3jY8
by SteveHoffmanSlowey on Dec 29, 2011 9:46 PM EST up reply actions
I agree with you
ANd I caught a ton of flack here for saying Jazayerli’s findings naturally extended to players in the minor leagues. Not only do i think this is true, I think it is obviously true.
Happy Holliday's everybody. Be safe and, enjoy! - Case
He was? Guess that shows I need to spend more time looking at this prep class
But it’s not a problem limited to Williams. Just looking at the first few player on that list:
Lucas Giolito: 7/14/1994 (per MLB.com); 6/14/1994 (per PG’s Top 300)
Kevin Gausman: 1/26/1991 (per MLB.com); 1/6/1991 (per PG’s Top 300 & 2010 draft tracker)
Chris Beck: 9/4/1990 (per MLB.com); 4/6/1991 (per PG’s Top 300)
Bullpen Banter
MLB Bonus Baby
Twitter Account: @Ioffridus
it was a joke
Something about it being hard to find a birthdate for North Koreans.
The California birth index says Giolito was born on July 14, in Los Angeles, fwiw.
Oscar Taveras vs. The World takes a back seat to Starlings’ 40 yard dash.
XandyMan Coming for you!!!!1
by DominicanDandy on Dec 28, 2011 4:07 PM EST reply actions 7 recs
What ev er!
Its been a bit since anybody has debated Oscar T’s, relatively undebatable excellence but, screw it – I’ll rec’ it, why not? :)
Happy Holliday's everybody. Be safe and, enjoy! - Case
Cleveland Indians
I like the pick and the mock in general, but I do feel it’s a little too much based on what each team needs which is very dynamic and hard to predict.
That brings me to the point of the Indians needing an outfielder. While I agree that they do need one, I disagree with your reasoning. Mainly because Choo does NOT have to serve in the military (he won a gold medal last year). He will most likely become to expensive for the Tribe though, so the end result might be the same.
I also don’t see Roache as an OF’er, but more as a 1B baseman. Luckily the Indians need someone there as well.
Like to see the Indians draft Smoral
Who is a local prospect living just outside Cleveland.
by cookiedabookie on Dec 30, 2011 11:17 AM EST up reply actions
Smoral
would be a good pick at #15, if he lasts that long. With his projectability, he’s a good senior season away from being a top 10 pick.
by McCutchenIsTheTruth on Dec 30, 2011 6:47 PM EST up reply actions
Of course they didn't do this with Allie
So I wouldn’t bet on them doing it with Smoral.
by cookiedabookie on Dec 30, 2011 9:43 PM EST up reply actions
I also don’t see Roache as an OF’er, but more as a 1B baseman. Luckily the Indians need someone there as well.
This angle definitely isn’t talked about enough. While I don’t think he ends up going to 1B, he’s rather thick and I think he’s going to settle in as an average to below average mobility corner guy – prototypical RF type. He definitely packs some surprising athleticism for his size, but his bat is his ticket. Out of guys with that kind of profile I’ll take Winker instead.
Blue Jays picks
I don’t think I could complain if the Jays winded up with Simms and Williams with their first two picks.
Simms in particular is one of my favourite pitchers available for this draft, and seems like exactly like the type of projectable HS arm our front office loves. If we were to take him, I think he would be one of our few pitching prospects (along with Norris and Syndergaard) who could have true top of the rotation potential.
Having said that, young pitching is the strength of our farm system. There is no shortage of young arms in the organization (Alvarez, Hutchison, McGuire, Wojo, Syndergaard, Nicolino, Comer, Taylor, Cardona, Osuna, Musgrove), and while you can never have enough pitching, high upside position prospects at premium positions (C, SS, 3B CF) seems to be the depth of the early part of the draft, and are the areas (other than catcher) where we need the greatest influx of talent.
Now, while I always subscribe to the BPA philosophy in the draft, if the pitcher and the position players available are equal in terms of talent in 2012, I would lean towards the position player.
At picks 17 and 22 I would love for us to select a player from this pool of talent, depending on availability: CF, Byron Buxton; CF, David Dahl; 3B Trey Williams; SS, Carlos Correa; SS Gavin Cechinni; CF, Albert Almora; 3B, Addison Russel; 3B Rio Ruiz.; SS, Jesmuel Valentin.
Pitching alternates: RHP, Lucas Simms; RHP, Taylore Cherry, RHP; Ty Hensley; LHP, Hunter Virant.
We could then target these talented pitchers with our 3 supplemental picks (48, 51, 52): RHP, Duane Underwood; LHP, Kyle Twomey; LHP, Rock Rucker; RHP, Mitchell Traver; LHP, Max Foody; RHP, Ryan Burr; LHP Jack Wynkoop; RHP, Branden Kline; RHP, Kyle Hansen; RHP, Cody Poteet; LHP, Austin Fairchild.
There’s some pretty good pitching talent that should be available in the supplemental.
My ideal draft would probably look like this at the moment:
1st Round
(17) SS, Gavin Cechinni / SS, Carlos Correa (22) CF, David Dahl / CF, Albert Almora
or
(17) LF, Nick Williams / SS, Gavin Cechinni (22) CF, David Dahl / 3B, Addison Russell.
Supplemental Round
(48) RHP, Duane Underwood/ LHP, Kyle Twomey (51) LHP, Rock Rucker / RHP, Cody Poteet (52) RHP, Mitchell Traver / RHP, Branden Kline / LHP, Max Foody.
That would be a very good haul for the Jays.
Go ahead, make my day.
by ilikeburritos on Dec 30, 2011 8:18 PM EST up reply actions
Jays
I’m already not missing Tyler Beede, especially since pick 22 this year is protected again for some reason.
by JaysFanToronto on Dec 30, 2011 8:25 PM EST up reply actions
It
would be a great haul. Wonder if the Blue Jays will have enough money to buy out two high school bats like that. Most likely, but it’s a potential issue worth noting.
by McCutchenIsTheTruth on Dec 30, 2011 8:24 PM EST up reply actions
That's a good point
I didn’t factor signability into these picks for some reason.
The way the draft is structured it seems you either have to go above slot early and signability late or signability early and above slot late.
Theoretically though, you could exceed the draft allotment as much as you want if you have the money to pay the tax, and if say, the next two drafts are week enough to want to forfeit a first rounder or two.
by JaysFanToronto on Dec 30, 2011 8:30 PM EST up reply actions
the signing cap is on a per pick basis
So you cannot save money on one pick to use on another. If you go over on pick 17, that amount will be assessed as breaking the cap for that pick, regardless of how much you spend on the next pick.
by cookiedabookie on Dec 30, 2011 9:49 PM EST up reply actions
I don't think that is true
It is my understanding that the signing cap is based on the slot values for each pick a team has in the first 10 rounds of the draft combined. So if the 10 picks equal a total slot value of $7 Million, then that is what they can spend any way they want to on those 10 players. However, if the team fails to sign any of the players selected, they lose the value of that slot towards your cap. The exception being if they fail to sign a draft pick because of injury and offered at least 40% of the recommended slot.
by Captain Jeter on Dec 30, 2011 10:50 PM EST up reply actions
That's my understanding
In practice, I don’t see many draftees accepting figures much under the slot figure as that power to subtract the figure by not signing is a power weapon. So we’re going to have a de facto hard slotting system… assuming that team’s don’t go the route mrkupe prescribed of completely disregarding the system and accepting the fines.
Bullpen Banter
MLB Bonus Baby
Twitter Account: @Ioffridus
Gonna
echo Jeff and Captain Jeter here cookie. Not how it works. If it worked in your fashion then it’s pure hard slotting, which it isn’t. It’s close,but not quite.
by McCutchenIsTheTruth on Dec 31, 2011 12:49 AM EST up reply actions
Same
That’s how I understood it as well. There’s a pool of money which is made up of an aggregate of the “slot” amounts, which can be spent however you like. But if you fail to sign a player, the total value of that pick is lost to you, whereas if you sign a player for 500,000 and the slot for that pick was say 1.3, you get to use the left over money on other picks.
The Jays, based on my rough early estimates, taking into account both the Beede pick and their extra compensation picks have about 8.29mill to spend, an amount which they can exceed by up to 5% with only a 75% tax to pay. That’s an extra 414, 500 (or the value of a late supplemental pick). In total it looks like they have 8.7m or 8,704,500m to spend on the first 10 picks, which seems like plenty.
If they’re willing to forfeit a draft pick that’s an extra 829,000 (an early supplemental pick) instead of 414,500, which would give them a total 9,119,000. It would be a calculated gamble, which they shouldn’t take unless they have extra picks coming in the next draft or if the next draft is not particularly good.
by JaysFanToronto on Dec 31, 2011 12:28 PM EST up reply actions
There have been many mistakes
with the 1-1 pick for teams going with the “safest” bet just as many as going with the upside. I think Houston needs to shoot for the moon, they’ll be picking in the top 5 for the next few years anyways, they are in no hurry.
I’d take Buxton, Giolito, Gauseman, Apple before I take Zunino.
XandyMan Coming for you!!!!1
I really don't think selecting Zunino would be a situation where a team is opting for safety
He is a legitimate top 5 pick. He doesn’t have the pure upside that an Appel or Buxton has, but that doesn’t mean he’s one of those safe overdraft picks in the Tony Sanchez mold.
Bullpen Banter
MLB Bonus Baby
Twitter Account: @Ioffridus
I had him 5th there so I agree
haha.
XandyMan Coming for you!!!!1
by DominicanDandy on Dec 30, 2011 10:49 PM EST up reply actions
I
think it’s also interesting because, although they may not admit it, Houston’s play acquisition strategy needs to change as they move to a now stacked AL West. In the NL Central, Zunino may actually make decent sense; presumably the Astros would be adding a catcher who’s almost guaranteed to be league average with upside for more. Ya it’s safer, and thus there is less upside than say Appel, but a cost controlled above-average catcher for 6 years is very valuable in a division that had the following win totals win it the last several years.
2011 – 96 (90 earned a wild card spot)
2010 – 91
2009 – 91
2008 – 97
2007 – 85
2006 – 83
Conversely, a win total in the high 80’s and low 90’s probably won’t give you a shot at a playoff berth going forward in the AL, even with the new wildcard (which again conversely makes it even easier in the NL).
Houston’s farm system, while still probably below-average when looking at the whole league, actually has a fair amount of upside. Plus the Astros will probably have picks inside the top 3 or 5 in the next two or more drafts. If they were staying in the NL Central, they have enough upside now and can add more later that they don’t need to take an unnecessary risk right now. If Appel, or someone else doesn’t emerge as a safer bet and Zunino really is that safe, taking Zunino may have been the right move. Now, as they look at the Rangers and Angels, the Astros may have to take a risk they don’t like.
by McCutchenIsTheTruth on Dec 31, 2011 4:18 PM EST up reply actions
Lets talk strategy if you guys were the Houston Astros...
What would be your strategy going into the draft?
My strategy for pick 1:1 would be getting who’s going to be the best player out of this draft no matter the demographic. I have enough assets in the minors to take my time with them even if it will take 3+ years for me to see the benefits. If the draft was held right now my pick would be Lucas Giolito with Buxton a close second. For the rest of the draft I’d go back and forth between “safe” bets and “high” ceiling low probability. So I can fill-out my upper minors but also have depth lower. With the new draft rules I won’t be able to go all in like KC, Pitt, Wash have done recently but I get the benefit of the well fare system my friend Bud has pushed through. So I expect to have multiple picks for the next few draft to go along with picking in the top 5 so I can take reasonable gambles.
XandyMan Coming for you!!!!1
I do tend to shy away from HS arms for 1:1
Of course you always take the BPA, but the ideal for me would always be that the BPA is a polished, high ceiling college position player, and that’s why I was looking at Zunino. But I suppose his ceiling may not actually be that high—maybe he can only become an above average player, not a 5 WAR guy, and if that’s the case it’s harder to argue that he’s actually the BPA.
The top of the high school class actually looks pretty strong in this year’s draft. I like Giolito, I like Trey Williams, I like Byron Buxton. But it’s always scary to take an HS player with such a valuable pick, and especially a pitcher.
I suppose I would just hope a college player really separates himself from the pack over the course of the season.
http://www.crawfishboxes.com
Made
me think. I bet the Rays wish they had went with the “safe” college player in Buster Posey rather than the toolsy, high-ceiling Tim Beckham. Hindsight is 20-20 though.
by McCutchenIsTheTruth on Dec 31, 2011 8:39 PM EST up reply actions
The Rays have a team policy of not giving major league contracts to draft picks.
Posey was their choice almost all summer (they did consider Pedro Alvarez briefly, but he also was demanding a ML contract),
The Rays were in full blown discussions right up until the evening before draft day but were unable to convince Posey’s agent to drop the contract demand.
So, the Rays “settled” on Posey.
Didn't they give a major league contract to Delmon Young out of HS?
I guess that was prior to Friedman’s arrival though. Is it a policy he put into place? Pretty big mistake on his part in retrospect, at least in regards to that pick. Just seems like a dumb reason to pass on an advanced college bat at the top of the draft.
Doesn't
really matter. The Rays still dropped the ball. Just like the Marlins allegedly dropped the ball on Pujols, and possibly CJ Wilson in regards to the “no trade” clause issue.
by McCutchenIsTheTruth on Jan 1, 2012 2:10 PM EST up reply actions
Yes
I see Zunino in more of the Posey, legitimate top selection mold, than the overdrafted catchers of the recent past (Castro, Sanchez).
Bullpen Banter
MLB Bonus Baby
Twitter Account: @Ioffridus
The Astros need some extensive work on their farm system
I would shy away from the safe picks and go for the upside. I also think it’s a nice idea to stabilize a farm system with pitching before working on the bats. So if I was drafting for the Astros, I would pick Giolito.
Go ahead, make my day.
by ilikeburritos on Dec 31, 2011 5:17 PM EST up reply actions
I don't really agree with the central thesis here
That the Astros need “extensive work”. I would characterize the system as average-to-mediocre, but stocked with pretty good overall upside. The top three of Singleton, Springer, and Cosart already have big potential, but there are some guys farther down the totem pole with good upside as well—Foltynewicz, DeShields, Santana, for instance. I would generally characterize the Astros’ minor league system as being a low floor, high ceiling farm. Or one with a solid potential, but well above average risk as well.
Maybe it is a good idea to add another risky high ceiling guy to that mix, maybe not. If you believe in a balanced approach, I actually think a safe pick would make more sense. But for me, and I think most people would have the same philosophy, it’s got to come down to Best Player Available if there is a clear one at all.
http://www.crawfishboxes.com
I like the system
I may like it more than I should as I’m a sucker for those toolsy former Philadelphia prospects. Not sure where it’s going to ultimately rank, but Springer-Singleton-Cosart-Villar-Santana is a pretty damn high upside top 5.
Bullpen Banter
MLB Bonus Baby
Twitter Account: @Ioffridus
if it means he stops writing for ESPN, I'm all for it
Don’t get me wrong, very intelligent man, but his personality just doesn’t translate to being a talking head type.
If he gets the job
I think there’s a good chance the 1.1 prep righty thing goes by the wayside.
Bullpen Banter
MLB Bonus Baby
Twitter Account: @Ioffridus
You
think Law would/will take Giolito? I’m assuming so or did you have someone else in mind?.. with the caveat that a lot can change in 6 months.
by McCutchenIsTheTruth on Jan 1, 2012 2:11 PM EST up reply actions
Yes, I think there's a very good chance that Law would take Giolito
Bullpen Banter
MLB Bonus Baby
Twitter Account: @Ioffridus
He's definitely on the record
as liking Gio best of anyone in the draft as of today.
by charles wallace on Jan 1, 2012 5:07 PM EST up reply actions
Keep in mind
That you have to think Luhnow will exercise a firm hand in drafting decisions, at least early on, since that was his calling card from his time in St. Louis.
http://www.crawfishboxes.com
If he gets the job
then I think they’ll go upside above all. Not discounting College players of course because who is to say that Gauseman, Apple, Zunino all have a strong spring and show that they have big upside with a high floor for them to pass up?
What it does take out of the picture, however, is the not taking a HS righty because it has never been done at 1:1. I actually think it enhances it as Law probably relishes going against the old man’s thinking. But I am getting way ahead of my self here. Even if Law doesn’t get it I think the Astros have one of this new thinking FOs where everything is possible.
XandyMan Coming for you!!!!1
by DominicanDandy on Jan 1, 2012 3:39 PM EST up reply actions
Right now, Giolito
By draft time, I could see Buxton being the pick
by cookiedabookie on Dec 31, 2011 6:03 PM EST up reply actions
Gio
I’ve seen Lucas Giolito in his last three outings, two in LA and the other day at USD. Wanted to get a good hard look before posting. Here’s what I’ve seen. It’s obvious this kid has been working hard since I last saw him at AFLAC. He is now sitting 95-98, touching 99 out of both the wind-up and stretch. His CB is a knee buckler at 84-87 that breaks hard at the plate. It’s an MLB plus pitch now. Change-up is at 84-86 and looks like a split…bottom just drops out, another plus pitch. Two-seamer breaks with true armside run. Haven’t seen a 4 seamer under 96mph, lot’s of 98’s and a few 99’s. Impeccable control. He pounds the strike zone. Throws all his pitches with confidence. Everything is down in the zone. Great composure. He seems to ignore the guns and just pitch his game. Pitch count in his last three starts: 28 thru 3, 38 thru 4, 60 thru 4 2/3 with 11K’s no BB. He makes it look easy. It’s December and he’s just getting loose. He makes it look easy. It’s something.
by Byyronbb on Jan 1, 2012 11:55 AM EST via iPhone app reply actions 1 recs
Agreed
I hesitantly predict that he will be a better draft prospect than both Taillon and Bundy.
by McCutchenIsTheTruth on Jan 1, 2012 2:13 PM EST up reply actions
Notice
I just said draft prospect.
by McCutchenIsTheTruth on Jan 1, 2012 4:18 PM EST up reply actions
Er
just wanted to be clear.
I’m assuming you think I’m a moron.
by McCutchenIsTheTruth on Jan 1, 2012 5:05 PM EST up reply actions
Draft prospect make sense,
as he has that extra something that does cause draft historians to think that he could get legit 1-1 consideration. It’s interesting to bring up those two, as he seems to combine the strengths of both.
by charles wallace on Jan 1, 2012 5:14 PM EST up reply actions
"I’m assuming you think I’m a moron."
LOL, why would you think that?
A lot of your reasoning seems dependent on holes with the major league team
while a lot of those teams could pay attention to that, I think many will go the best available route. Also you seem to project many of these guys to get to the majors quickly. Overall though great read, and well done I enjoyed it.
Wacha
I think if wacha or beck are on the board, the a’s jump on them, and take fontana if he’s still on the board in the sandwich/2nd round
I think Fontana will be picked in the 2nd round.
He’s valued more for his defense than his bat. While the bat’s decent, it’s not a plus tool.
Go ahead, make my day.
by ilikeburritos on Jan 3, 2012 3:32 PM EST up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
