Minor League Ball: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:

Around SBN: Want to help build SB Nation? We're hiring! Bar-right-arrows

MOD: Mets II

Tiny by JJ1986 on

First Round

1. Diamondbacks: Justin Upton

2. Royals: Alex Gordon

3. Mariners: Cameron Maybin

4. Nationals: Ryan Zimmerman

5. Brewers: Mike Pelfrey

6. Blue Jays: Ryan Braun

7. Rockies: Luke Hochevar

8. Devil Rays: Jeff Clement

9. Mets

Star-divide

What I'd like to do now is to concentrate on the 121st and 151st pick. A few people posted their thoughts, but we got no discussion.

Do we draft for position here?

I'd like to get a college closer, but I have absolutely no idea about any of them outside of Hansen.

I'd like to get a starter if we don't take Romero.

If we do get Romero, I'd like to get a leadoff type hitter regardless of position.

Poll is done. Thanks for voting, but it looks like Pelfrey won't be available.

Poll
If all of these players are available, who should we take?
Ryan Braun
6 votes
Jeff Clement
4 votes
Craig Hansen
11 votes
Matt Pelfrey
12 votes
Luke Hochevar
2 votes
Stephen Drew
5 votes
Ricky Romero
3 votes
Jay Bruce
6 votes
Andrew McCutcheon
1 votes

50 votes | Poll has closed

0 recs | Comment 87 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Display:

Other
It didn't work when I posted "Other" in the poll. Post here if you think we should consider someone else.

by JJ1986 on May 30, 2005 2:54 PM EDT   0 recs

Poll suggestion
Take the Top 2 or 3 in this poll and then have another vote afterwards. Hypothetically, I selected Ryan Braun (I almost did), but he gets 2 votes. I'd like to vote again for the top 2 from this poll to get some form of consensus.

Gold glove voting should work like that but doesn't.

by nygiants5811 on May 30, 2005 11:55 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Board
If you could, I'd also like everyone to post his or her first round board here. Again, leave off the top 3 and make it six deep.

by JJ1986 on May 30, 2005 2:59 PM EDT   0 recs

re: Board
  1. Romero
  2. Bruce
  3. McCutheon
  4. Zimmerman
  5. Braun
  6. Lowrie

by JJ1986 on May 30, 2005 3:00 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

changed my mind a bit
  1. Bruce
  2. Romero
  3. Braun
  4. Hansen
  5. Ellsbury
  6. Zimmerman

by jeck on May 30, 2005 3:14 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

board
  1. Pelfrey
  2. Hansen
  3. Zimmerman
  4. Bruce
  5. Hochevar
  6. Romero

by kid dynamite on May 30, 2005 3:35 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re:Board
  1. Romero
  2. Hansen
  3. Braun
  4. Clement
  5. Pelfrey
  6. Ellsbury

by thudean on May 31, 2005 12:06 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

6 deep

  1. Pelfrey
  2. Hochevar
  3. Zimmerman
  4. Tulowitzski
  5. Bruce
  6. Hansen

by acerimusdux on May 31, 2005 1:57 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

121 or 151
I'm a little biased towards Umich, but I would take 2B Chris Getz. He will probably hit for a repectable average with nominal power.
"A hot dog at the ball park is better than steak at the Ritz." ~Humphrey Bogart

by mrmetaa on May 30, 2005 3:26 PM EDT   0 recs

Board
Assuming Upton, Gordon, Tulowitzki 1-2-3...
  1. Zimmerman
  2. Maybin
  3. Bruce
  4. Braun
  5. Hansen
  6. Pelfrey/Romero

by Mr Met on May 30, 2005 4:26 PM EDT   0 recs

Clement?
Clement's stock is rising in my mind, with more and more people seeming to say that he can stick at catcher.

If he's a catcher, which we need... AND a power hitter, which we need (#1 on BA's college ranking in that category)... AND a college kid coming from a great program... why SHOULDN'T we take him?

by dcarrano on May 30, 2005 6:11 PM EDT   0 recs

121 and 151... sigh
Its really hard to judge the spot.  Just lack the information necessary outside of the top picks to really get a handle on who may be available.

by thudean on May 31, 2005 12:11 AM EDT   0 recs

121 and 151
We can't really set up a board or expect players we name to still be there.

What I would like to know is if people think we should draft for position or take the best available player at these spots.

by JJ1986 on May 31, 2005 1:59 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Notes
I'll run the poll as soon as Drew's status comes clear. If someone finds out what happened, post it here.

About Clement, he was the third player overall on my origianl board, but no one else seemed to want him. He's someone I'll consder depedning on who's left. If anyone else feels like we should draft him post here.

by JJ1986 on May 31, 2005 12:23 AM EDT   0 recs

Re:
Okay, Drew's gone. I never expected that not to happen, but it's one less guy we can draft.

by JJ1986 on May 31, 2005 1:30 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

The poll
It's odd that Pelfrey is winning. He didn't have much support in the other thread. The Pelfrey fans are either quiet or voters from other teams.

by jeck on May 31, 2005 12:28 AM EDT   0 recs

Consensus Draft Board
  1. Upton
  2. Gordon
  3. Maybin
  4. Bruce
  5. Romero
  6. Braun
  7. Zimmerman
  8. Pelfrey
  9. ???
A lot of people probably think it should be Hansen. I don't think I can take him, though. It's the one thing I'll use authority on as Director.

So, I'm going to post 3 candidates. Jeff Clement, Jacoby Ellsbury and Andrew McCutcheon. I'd like people to post their favorite among those three here.

I may bump one of them to eight if there is enough support behind a candidate. I don't trust the results of the poll for Pelfrey.

by JJ1986 on May 31, 2005 1:38 AM EDT   0 recs

Ellsbury
My vote goes to Ellsbury.

by jeck on May 31, 2005 2:03 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

McCutchen
I don't really like that selection, but McCutchen is the easy choice for me of the three.

I don't think the other two ever make the majors.

by acerimusdux on May 31, 2005 2:02 AM EDT   0 recs

Tulo
If you want you can vote for Tulowitzki instead. Anyone can now. I just didn't see any support for him before.

I think he'll be gone early anyway and allow us to get one of our first eight choices.

by JJ1986 on May 31, 2005 2:10 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Tulowitzki then
I don't think there was too much support for him at #4 where BA has him ranked, but we're underrating him if he's not on our board at #9.

I think the other teams here may be under rating him a bit too - probably because they're all naturally judging more on stats than scouting.  But, Tulowitzski does have some pretty good offensive projection left, and he should stick at SS without any problem.  

I'd really put him only a bit ahead of McCutchen.

by acerimusdux on May 31, 2005 2:30 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Projected Mock Draft
After looking over the other boards, this is how I think it will go, now that Drew & Weaver have signed:
  1. AZ - Upton
  2. KC - Gordon
  3. SEA - Maybin
  4. WA - Zimmerman
  5. MIL - ??
  6. TOR - Braun
  7. COL - Hochevar
  8. TB - Pelfrey/Tulowitzki
I think it's reasonable to guess that Milwalkee will take one of Pelfrey or Tulowitzki.  If they go Hochevar, COL probably takes Pelfrey.

I think theres a chance one of Pelfrey or Tulowitzki falls, but the top 4 seem pretty set, and TOR & COL are leaning pretty heavily.

 

by acerimusdux on May 31, 2005 2:12 AM EDT   0 recs

pretty much agree
The one thing I noticed is that while there's support for Hochevar in Colorado, the guy in charge doesn't seem to like the idea much. I think we're looking at:
  1. Upton
  2. Gordon
  3. Maybin
  4. Zimmerman
  5. who knows, they don't even have a thread
  6. Braun/Romero
  7. Clement/Hansen/Hochevar
  8. Pelfrey
It's shaping up to look like we'll have at least one of Bruce, Braun, and Romero to choose from.

by jeck on May 31, 2005 2:19 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Milwaukee
No one knows about them, but I think it's going to be really important. If they draft Tulo or Braun or Romero, I think Bruce will fall to us.

Assuming that Hochevar is #1 on Colrado's board and Tampa is drafting a picther probably means that we get one of our three guys whatever happens.

by JJ1986 on May 31, 2005 2:29 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Draft
Does anyone know where we can get a list of the players who are eligible for the draft and some statistics. I've looked at BA's top 200, but that's pretty much it.

I found some stats but I don't know which players are considering going pro.

by JJ1986 on May 31, 2005 2:36 AM EDT   0 recs

No stats
But some scouting reports on about 180 top players
here at Brewerfan.net.

That & BA are the best sources I know.

by acerimusdux on May 31, 2005 2:57 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Thanks

by JJ1986 on May 31, 2005 3:02 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Projection
Here's a draft projection covering the first 50 spots.  Brief descriptions of each guy, with a few stats.

by acerimusdux on May 31, 2005 3:02 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Right
I actually wanted Pelfrey or Hochevar if they fall; but since it seems they won't, it's not worth arguing over right?

I think there's a chance Tulowitzki falls - especially if MIL grabs Pelfrey (and I think they should!), TB could possibly go for Hansen.  

Bruce vs. Tulowitzki might be an interesting debate.  Maybe include Clement (who has support on a few of the other boards as well).

 

by acerimusdux on May 31, 2005 2:44 AM EDT   0 recs

Okay
I'd consider moving Pelfrey up the board, but I too think it's a moot point. I don't think we should go for Hochevar. Too often two players get lumped togehther, I think Pelfrey's clearly better.

Tulo's fall is the most interesting thing we've got to talk about right now. If Milwaukee takes him, We should get Bruce. If Milwaukee gets Bruce, then Tulo could fall to us. It would be him v. Romero v. McCutcheon in my mind.

Like you said, if Milwaukee gets Pelfrey and TB gets Clement or Hansen, Bruce and Tulo will probably both be there. I don't see much support for Tulo, but I'd consider him.

by JJ1986 on May 31, 2005 3:01 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Tulo
Never really considered Tulo cause I just assumed he would go higher, but Mets got both Kazmir and Milledge on drops in the draft, gotta expect everything I guess.

Tulo would be good, I would prob have to alter my board.

  1. Romero
  2. Tulo
  3. Hansen
  4. Braun
  5. Clement
  6. Pelfrey

by thudean on May 31, 2005 7:00 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Also
I personally hate Scott Boras and I think a lot of people do. I know it doesn't matter here and I haven't considered it, but I think it may play a role in turning support against Pelfrey and Hochevar.

by JJ1986 on May 31, 2005 3:04 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Boras..
Maybe his failure to give weaver and drew what they "wanted" may set him back with his other players this year

by thudean on May 31, 2005 7:00 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Agree
I don't think the Boras factor will change the Mock draft at all.

In the real draft, I think the Mets may land Pelfrey.

by acerimusdux on May 31, 2005 12:29 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Boras
Hate's a strong word. I think it is fair to say his negotiating style does not always accomplish the most for his clients. Sure, it gets them the most dough (except Drew and Weaver), but it sets them back developmentally. Is it worth it?

Boras would probably begin negotiations with the Mets for Pelfrey right at what Niemann got (5 year, $5.2m), but might settle for a bit more than Humber got (5 year, $4.2m guaranteed). Both were major-league deals.

by Mr Met on May 31, 2005 12:37 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

119 and 149
Those are the numbers of our later round picks now that Drew and Weaver have signed.

I picked most of these players off of either BA's list or the Brewerfan list. Does anyone have any thoughts on any of them

119

2B Cameron Blair
2B Jemile Weeks
2B Chris Getz
SS Reese Havens
C Nick Hundley
RHP Chris Nicoll
RHP Kevin Slowey

149 (All closers or will be in the majors)

Zach Ward
Brent J. Cox
Joey Devine
Neil Jamison
Mitch Boggs

by JJ1986 on May 31, 2005 3:21 AM EDT   0 recs

Jamison
I remember watching him in the college world series last year.  His stuff is nasty, but he is erratic.  Still, he has excellent stuff for a college closer.

by thudean on May 31, 2005 6:57 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Tulowitzki
I would put Tulo right under Zimmerman on my list of potential falls.

Omar went to scout Pelfrey this weekend and he dominated. Hot rumor is the Mets are now looking hard at Pelfrey at No. 9.

Great pitcher's build. Very good stuff. Rick Peterson. Could be a coup. I've been shot down on Pelfrey before, but I think we have to look at him.

by Mr Met on May 31, 2005 10:36 AM EDT   0 recs

New Board
  1. Upton
  2. Gordon
  3. Maybin
  4. Bruce
  5. Tulowitzki
  6. Romero
  7. Pelfrey
  8. Braun
  9. Zimmerman
How would everyone feel about this? I know that some people will habe problems with it, it's pretty far from my own board, but as a group board, does anyone feel we should make any changes?

by JJ1986 on May 31, 2005 11:44 AM EDT   0 recs

Re: New Board
Can't really quibble with any of these guys. Do we think Zimmerman will be available? He'd be a no-brainer pick, for me. We should definitely go Zim or Braun over McCutcheon, Hochevar or Clement, in my book.

And Bruce No. 4?

by Mr Met on May 31, 2005 11:53 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Zim
Zimmerman looks to be almost as much of a lock as the top 3. Bruce has gotten the most support, I think because he's most likely to be available.

by JJ1986 on May 31, 2005 12:00 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Tulowitzki
I don't think he should be that high. I'm not one for drafting by position, but when you have a 21 year old shortstop who is probably going to stick around awhile, I don't think drafting Tulowitzki is a great idea. At any other position, his bat becomes either average or below average IMO. Yeah, you could say the Mets could trade him or that it's good to have depth, but that's not what a team should be aiming for with the #9 overall pick.

I feel at the very least Romero has to go ahead of him. Do we really think Tulowitzki makes sense for us or are we only putting him that high because other sources say he'd be a bargain at #9? If the answer is not the former, we shouldn't even be considering him.

by jeck on May 31, 2005 2:18 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

re:
I don't personally like him, but I don't feel that we shoud just pass him up because he's a SS. He's much more of a sure thing than Romero or Bruce for obvious reasons. Again, with only one high pick I'd like to minimize the risk of a flameout.

by JJ1986 on May 31, 2005 2:22 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Not just because he's a SS
But you've got to take the fact that he won't actually play shortstop for the Mets into consideration. If he's playing 2nd base, what really separates him from a Lowrie? Not much. In fact, Lowrie walks a lot more.

If you want an absolutely minimal risk of bust, than maybe he's your guy. But I don't agree with taking a low risk/low reward approach. Bruce has good plate discipline, makes contact, uses the whole field... as toolsy high school outfielders go, he's about as low risk as they come. Braun has had a lot of success hitting at the college level. Why is he so much riskier than Tulowitzki? He certainly has a much higher ceiling.

by jeck on May 31, 2005 2:33 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re:
Tulo's a college player who could be ready for the bigs soon. I don't like his ceiling and I don't really want him, but a lot of draft picks don't even make the majors. Tulo almost definitely will.

Bruce apparently has a good eye and a good bat, but so did Kazuo. I think that it's very hard to judge a player when he's playing against inferior competition.

by JJ1986 on May 31, 2005 2:43 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

I still really dislike Tulowitzki
If we were a small market team, just making the majors might be important. But the Mets aren't. I strongly disagree with that rationale. Why is it important if he makes the majors if all he does is become a player whose production could have easily been found for a few million on the free agent market? I'm not saying we should go for the really high potential bust guys (like McCutchen), but as a large market team with a high draft pick, you've got to aim higher than Tulowitzki.

Being a high school player shouldn't be a negative in and of itself. David Wright was a high school hitter. Bruce isn't a raw, undisciplined hitter. He's quite the opposite.

by jeck on May 31, 2005 3:05 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Defense of Tulowitzki
I'm confused as to why you would consider Tulowitzki a compromise pick. He's the third-ranked draft prospect by BA--ahead of everyone except Upton and Gordon.

If he were a marginal shortstop prospect I'd agree on passing, but getting a player projected to be better than Bobby Crosby--no matter which middle infield spot he occupies--would be fair value at No. 9. Terrific defense, arm strength and athleticism.

That would go for much higher than a few million on the market. Orland Cabrera got $8 million, for crying out loud!

by Mr Met on May 31, 2005 3:28 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Jose Reyes
Whether you like it or not, Jose Reyes is the Mets shortstop and will continue to be the Mets shortstop. So whenever I talk about Tulowitzki, I'm thinking about him as a 2nd baseman. As such, I fail to see why he's so different from Lowrie.

by jeck on May 31, 2005 3:51 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Jose
I haven't advocated moving Reyes off short. It was a ridiculous idea to move him for Matsui. It'd be a bad idea to move him for Tulowitzki.

But how about this ... Reyes will have four to six years' service time by time Tulowitzki's ready for the bigs. If Reyes hasn't improved the weaker areas of his game by then, then--boom!--the Mets will have some serious leverage.

(For the record, I think Reyes will be very good. It's just an example--because he does have significant room for improvement.)

And if Tulowitzki's a second baseman? Who cares? He's one of the top hitters available. A true five-tooler. And you'd be hard-pressed to find a scout who thinks Lowrie is a superior talent to Tulowitzki.

by Mr Met on May 31, 2005 4:31 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

I just don't buy it
I really don't think he is one of the top hitters available. The scouts can say he's going to be better than Crosby all day long, but these guys have to be wrong sometimes. Otherwise, every first round pick would work out. I can't overcome my gut feeling on Tulowitzki. If there's a majority who likes him, of course he should be the pick.. that is the whole point of this after all. I'd still think it's a mistake, but thankfully this doesn't count for anything. :)

by jeck on May 31, 2005 4:46 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: McCutchen vs Bruce
So you're saying McCutchen has bust potential but does not (or has much less)? How are you arriving at that conclusion?
Got my nats tickets. Lousy Seats: opening night(D'backs), 5/14(Cubs). Good Seats: 6/2(Braves), 6/9(A's), 7/5(Mets)

by natsfan2005 on May 31, 2005 3:34 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Maybe I shouldn't have specified McCutchen
I was just trying to make a point that Bruce has less bust potential than your sterotypical toolsy high school outfielder. I don't know all that much about McCutchen so using him as an example was probably ill-advised. The things that differentiate Bruce have been mentioned already: plate discipline, use of all fields, ability to make contact, no known questions about hitting breaking balls or with wood bats... he's just a polished hitter. Very similar to Jeremy Hermida in my mind.

by jeck on May 31, 2005 3:45 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Possibly there
Maybe we should get a ranking of the guys likely to be there (including Tulowitzki).

I think McCutchen and Bruce should probably be pretty close.  BA had McCutchen one spot ahead of Bruce on its top 200, and now on the tracker they have Bruce one spot ahead of McCutchen.  Very different players; Bruce is the higher ceiling, McCutchen is more polished, will move quicker, and is the safer pick.

I'm also not sure if there's more support for Clement or Braun amongst the college bats.

I've been waffling back and forth on some of these, especially Bruce vs. McCutchen.  John Manuel was pretty negative on Bruce in the first BA chat, and I usually trust Manuel.

Braun looks like the best bat of the college guys there, but he apparently has a hitch in his swing, and thus will require some adjustment to wood bats.  Clement has great plate discipline and power potential, but I'm not quite sold on his ability to hit for average in pro ball.  I do think he could stay behind the plate, but I think he still won't be much of a defender if he does.  I think I like Tulowtiski's bat about as much, and I like his tools better - I'm more confident that he'll stay at SS.  

And Romero, I'm not as high on as some here.  I don't see him having the same ceiling as Hochevar or Pelfrey.  I think he's more of a mid to back end starter.  But, as a lefty, I think he would still be usefull.  I think I'd actually like him as a guy who could help fairly soon as a set up man.

My list for now:

  1. Tulowitzki
  2. MCCutchen
  3. Braun
  4. Bruce
  5. Romero
  6. Clement

by acerimusdux on May 31, 2005 12:56 PM EDT   0 recs

No. 9
I think that we all have kicked around all the possibliites and know the pros and cons for most of the choices at 9. I think that for now we should just wait and see how the first eight picks develop.
Then we can decide who we should actually pick.

by JJ1986 on May 31, 2005 1:03 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Guesses
So, our best guess now is that Milwaukee will take Pelfrey. Toronto will then grab Braun, Colorado Hochevar and Tampa either Clement or Hansen.

That leaves us with Bruce, Romero and Tulowitzki. So, of those 3, who's the pick? I'd think that it would have to be the shortstop if he's still there.

by JJ1986 on May 31, 2005 1:30 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Board
I've updated the board at the top. It's not perfect, but I'd say that's what we have to expect.

by JJ1986 on May 31, 2005 2:05 PM EDT   0 recs

9
Okay, I'd like everyone to post their top 3 here who will be available at our spot. Conditions are use the projected 8 at the top of the board and NO Hansen.

by JJ1986 on May 31, 2005 2:31 PM EDT   0 recs

re:
  1. Jay Bruce
  2. Ricky Romero
  3. Uhh, no Hansen... Ellsbury then

by jeck on May 31, 2005 2:46 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

if it goes like that...
  1. Tulowitzki
  2. McCutchen
  3. Bruce
I'm a BPA believer; worry about what to do with Tulo later if we get him.

Clement would be my 1.5 on this list.

by dcarrano on May 31, 2005 3:14 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Rank at No. 9
  1. Tulowitzki
  2. Bruce
  3. Hansen/Romero

by Mr Met on May 31, 2005 2:53 PM EDT   0 recs

same for me
  1. Tulowitzki
  2. Bruce
  3. Hansen/Romero

by DavidWrightismyGod on May 31, 2005 4:28 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Can David Wright be my God, too?
Wright Rules the Earth!

Know where I can find a #5 royal blue jersey tee?

by Mr Met on May 31, 2005 4:32 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

hit up an met's clubhouse store
and you'll find a ton of them. got mine at the one on 54th between lex and 3rd ave. in nyc. and yes, he does rule the earth!

by DavidWrightismyGod on May 31, 2005 5:36 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

One last post about 9
Right now, I'm sure that I can make the pick given anything that happens in the top 8. I am though, feeling very underwhelmed with Tulowitzki or Bruce or Romero. I'm going to throw one more name out there.

How about Trevor Crowe? We haven't discussed him at all, but this is a guy who was the second best hitter in college ball last year. (After Gordon)

Is the only reason we're ignoring him because no one else has him this high?

by JJ1986 on Jun 1, 2005 1:15 AM EDT   0 recs

Crowe
Crowe is well overrated in my opinion.  We have alot of soft hitting, fast leadoff type guys in the system and don't need to get another with the #9 spot.  Its just drafting a better version of Lydon, just not really anything projectible or extremely valuable to us.  To others, he could be fantastic.

by thudean on Jun 1, 2005 11:09 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

About Pick #9
Even as someone with signability, Crowe is not projected to go this high.  While I diasgree on Tulo's power potential (Long Beach State is not an easy place to go deep and Tulo had 1/3 of his team's HRs), the BB:K ratio is a bit disconcerting.  I personally would take him or Romero with this pick.  Dare I use a former Yankees pitcher in a comparison, but Romero reminds me a lot of Andy Pettitte.  If we can get someone like Pettitte in his prime, that would really help our rotation.  Not to mention that LHP is a weakness throughout our system.  All of our top SP prospects are righties.  Given the demand for good left-handed pitching, I think someone like Romero is a no brainer. There are also two HS pitchers I like in Chris Volstad and Mark Pawelek if you really do not like the college pitching available

by mtk52983 on Jun 1, 2005 6:55 AM EDT   0 recs

Re: About Pick #9
Second that.

Romero's pretty good, but I'm concerned he profiles too much like a No. 3, which is fine for the smaller-revenue clubs. But the Mets can sign as many No. 3s on the market as they want. They've got a rotation full of 'em now.

It would be much harder to find a No. 1 or 2 reliever on the market, in my opinion. I still like Tulowitzki first (Blair Field is brutal on hitters), then Bruce, then Hansen, who got a ton of support in the poll.

Volstad is definitely somebody to look at, though. If we're convinced his ceiling's higher than Romero, it might be worth discussing.

by Mr Met on Jun 1, 2005 9:59 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Profile?
Come on, how many pitchers actually succeed in making it to the majors as a #1 starter.  Hell, what does it mean to be a #1 starter.  Romero's stuff is wicked and he knows how to pitch.  That alone makes him valuable.  If he projects to only a #3 in your eyes, that just makes all the more money we can spend buying a #1 from someone else (in theory).  Hell, Heilman was drafted to be a #1 starter and is a 3 Max, Benson was drafted to be a #1 starter and he's our 3.  Be Happy with three, its better than bust.  I would say there really are no surefire #1 starters anywhere in this draft, all with a potential.

by thudean on Jun 1, 2005 11:14 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Profile?
Probably next to zero arrived in the majors as a No. 1. Prior, maybe? Hudson and Peavy became Ones.

It is quite rare, yes, to have an amateur profile as a true No. 1 major league starter. There aren't many true Ones right now in the bigs. Niemann last year might be one. Pelfrey could be one.

Heilman absolutely was not drafted as a No. 1. Even when he was the Mets' top prospect he was considered a potential "solid No. 2 or 3."

by Mr Met on Jun 1, 2005 12:55 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Volstad+
Okay, I did some looking at previous drafts last night and I don't think that we should take a pitcher at all.

The number of them who flame out is ridiculous. In the five year period I looked at, out of x pithcers drafted in the first round:

1, Roy Halladay, is a Cy Young Award Winner
1, Billy Wagner, is an Ace Closer
1, Adam Eaton, is a future Ace
1, Kerry Wood, is an All Star
4, Morris, Benson, Redman and Carpenter, are #3's
2, Garland and Patterson, are having decent years finally
2, Hermanson and Looper, are decent relievers
10, Wright, Wright, Wilson, Milton, Westbrook, Elarton, Meche, Brian Anderson and Alan Benes, have made a decent number of starts.
2, D'Amico and Dreifort, lost their careers to injury in the majors
1, Doug Million, died
22 pitched in the Majors at one time, but not for long.
23 never reached the majors

Succes rate: 5.7% Great, 17.1% Good, 34.3% Have a Career.

Failures include Kirk Presley and Geoff Getz.

The success rate for positiong players is much higher, especially in the first 15 picks.

by JJ1986 on Jun 1, 2005 11:52 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Eaton
Well, I disagree that Eaton is a future ace. Petco has been probably the best pitchers park in all of baseball the last couple of years. Yet Eaton gave up oodles of doubles and homers.

To me a 'Future Ace' isn't still giving up that many extra base hits and posting a ~1.3 WHIP 120 starts into his career. He's another #3 starter who is in a pitchers park and has a good bullpen stranding inherited runners.

Got my nats tickets. Lousy Seats: opening night(D'backs), 5/14(Cubs). Good Seats: 6/2(Braves), 6/9(A's), 7/5(Mets)

by natsfan2005 on Jun 1, 2005 1:40 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Hitters
Same thing, same time period.

1, A-Rod, may end up as one of the 5 greatest players ever.
1 more, Todd Helton, is a future Hall of Famer.
4, Berkman, Nomar, E-Chavez, and Glaus, are possible future Hall of Famers.
8, Varitek (x2), Konerko, Derek Lee, Torii Hunter, JD Drew, Troy Glaus, Vernon Wells are All Star Caliber Players.
6, Trot Nixon, Mark Kotsay, Geoff Jenkins, Michael Barrett, Jos Cruz Jr. and Todd Walker are above average players.
4, Erstad, Kennedy, Cuddyer and Grieve, have been or are average players.
1, Travis Lee, is a huge bust, but still in the majors.
2, Terrence Long and Ben Davis, have careers.
16 played some in the majors.
21 didn't.

Failures include Rob Stratton and Ryan Jaroncyek.

Success rate: 9.4% Great, 31.2% Good, 42.2% Decent

by JJ1986 on Jun 1, 2005 12:08 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Note
4 of the top 5 guys were drafted as shortstops. It doesn't mean much, but it's interesting to note.

by JJ1986 on Jun 1, 2005 12:37 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

A quibble
I sincerely doubt Helton is a sure-thing Hall of Famer. Is Delgado? Is Thome?

I looked at this too, but arrived at something different. If we're going to take a hitter, it should probably be a collegian. If we're going to take a pitcher, the choice is less clear. First rounders from 1997-2002:

A. College Hitter Pool: Glaus, Berkman, Kennedy; Burrell,  J.D. Drew, C. Pena, A. Everett; Munson, Bigbie; Borchard, Utley; Teixeira, Crosby; Greene, Adams, Swisher.

B. High School Hitter Pool: V. Wells, Cuddyer, Werth; C. Patterson, Kearns, F. Lopez, Burroughs; Rios; Baldelli; Mauer, Kotchman; Upton.

Pool A is clearly superior to B at this time. But three years from now things might look different. Remove Teixeira from B and it's a lot closer.

C. College Pitcher Pool:M. Anderson; Mulder, Weaver, K. Wells, Lidge; Zito, Sheets, Jennings, M. Ginter, MacDougal; Prior, Brazelton, VanBentchoten, Heilman, Lowry; Francis, Blanton.

D. High School Pitcher Pool: Garland; Sabathia; Beckett, Myers; S. Burnett; G. Floyd, Bonderman; Greinke, Kazmir.

Here, I'd almost take Pool D over C. I like the upsides of Sabathia, Beckett, Myers, Bonderman, Greinke and Kazmir more than anyone save Prior from the college crowd.  

by Mr Met on Jun 1, 2005 12:38 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Helton
Helton has been better than Delgado, everything adjusted, every season since 2000 and Delgado didn't build up much of an advantage before that. He's also arguably the best fielding infielder in the national leauge and definitely the best defensive first baseman in the game. Unless he falls apart he's a Hall of Famer. A Bagwell like decline would definitely put him in.

Thome's probably a borderline case. He doesn't have the the peak value or the defense that Helton does. U don't think that his being left out would mean that Helton doesn't deserve to get in.

by JJ1986 on Jun 1, 2005 12:45 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Pitchers
I noticed that too. Prior, Wood and Sheets, the biggest recent college success, were all heralded as the best guy and absoulte sure things. No one this year is like that.

On the other hand, in addition to your list, Eaton and Halladay were High School picks recently and I think this is clearly the better pool. So, maybe we should give Volstead a closer look.

The hitters would be more balanced if you went back a few years. C. Jones, Rodriguez and Chavez were all high school hitters.

by JJ1986 on Jun 1, 2005 12:52 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Logistical Notes
There's no reason why I shouldn't be here Sunday, but just in case I need someone to be a backup.

I'm working on a board th