11/23/24
June 07, 2007
David Price has anger management issues.: Or a substance abuse problem. Or, if he doesn't now, he will -- why else would the Tampa Devil Rays take him first in the Major League Baseball amateur draft? This link is updating as the draft progresses with info on all the first round picks.
posted by The Crafty Sousepaw to baseball at 01:49 PM - 30 comments
I don't really know how the baseball draft works. How was he drafted in the 19th round of the Highschool draft and then drafted again today in the Ameture draft?
posted by Steel_Town at 01:56 PM on June 07, 2007
I don't really know how the baseball draft works. How was he drafted in the 19th round of the Highschool draft and then drafted again today in the Ameture draft? I don't know all the specifics, but if a player doesn't sign when drafted out of high school, and goes to college, the team loses his rights and he re-enters the draft after finishing college.
posted by tommybiden at 02:01 PM on June 07, 2007
I wanted to attend this draft at Disney's Wide World of Sports in Jets gear. It seems wrong that angry Jets fans aren't there, now that it's being televised live.
posted by rcade at 02:30 PM on June 07, 2007
I don't know all the specifics, but if a player doesn't sign when drafted out of high school, and goes to college, the team loses his rights and he re-enters the draft after finishing college. I think it's if the player isn't signed by next year's draft, he goes back into the pool. The good side of MLB.com has a nice Flash 9 interface for tracking the draft, complete with scouting video.
posted by yerfatma at 03:04 PM on June 07, 2007
from the official rules page: A Club generally retains the rights to sign a selected player until 11:59 PM (EDT) August 15, or until the player enters, or returns to, a four-year college on a full-time basis. A player who is drafted and does not sign with the Club that selected him may be drafted again at a future year's Draft, so long as the player is eligible for that year's Draft. A Club may not select a player again in a subsequent year, unless the player has consented to the re-selection.
posted by goddam at 03:24 PM on June 07, 2007
I am really surprised at the number of players chosen in the first round who are described as having major flaws in their game, especially position players on defense. "Has great arm strength, but sometimes has problems on defense and doesn't have great range." So he's the #3 pick in the whole country? Seriously, there aren't any quality five tool players in the whole pool? Yahoo surmised the Cardinals' pick was need based because he was projected as a supplemental or second round pick. Right. I'm sure they were thinking hey, we're weak up the middle, better solve that problem by taking an 18-year-old middle infielder straight out of high school. Forget the best available talent in the draft, because how else could we possibly get a decent middle infielder? If these scouting reports are near valid, you have to conclude that teams no longer spend five minutes seriously scouting this pool or even thinking about the amateur draft. Their lists are likely scrawled out on the flight back from the Dominican.
posted by The Crafty Sousepaw at 04:32 PM on June 07, 2007
best pitcher in the draft hands down.
posted by ballaford50 at 05:48 PM on June 07, 2007
I don't really know how the baseball draft works. How was he drafted in the 19th round of the Highschool draft and then drafted again today in the Ameture draft? The same thing happened with Mark Prior (1998 to 2001). BTW, if you want to waste hours of your life, surf on over to the Baseball Reference draft page. Who was the 1390th pick in the 1988 draft? Which player has been drafted SIX different times?
posted by grum@work at 06:40 PM on June 07, 2007
They're showing the draft on Baseball Channel TV on MLB's website. (Or were an hour or two ago.) Oddly interesting.
posted by Drood at 06:48 PM on June 07, 2007
From what I've read, it appears that baseball is the biggest hit or miss of any of the drafts. The "locks" are less of locks than any other sport, and the stars coming from lower draft rounds are more prevalent than any sport except maybe hockey. Or so the gods of ESPN lead me to believe.
posted by jmd82 at 11:18 PM on June 07, 2007
I am really surprised at the number of players chosen in the first round who are described as having major flaws in their game, especially position players on defense. I think that's due to the honest scouting reports. It's jarring, but you have to remember some of these kids are just graduating high school and years away from competing at the major league level. There's a reason so few players jump right to the majors, and that's because they need training to clean up flaws, to find the position they should be playing, etc. For the most part, they're the best players on their teams, so there's an undue number of SS, CF, and pitchers who need to get moved to 2B, 3B, OF and 1B. The only picks I really took a look at were Brad Mills' (Red Sox bench coach) son who went in the top 15 because of his hitting and the pitcher in the top 10 from Quebec.. Mills' throwing motion from third is as weird as the scouting report says it is. The Indians can either correct it or move him to first or something. The pitcher is more potential than anything else, having played in a small time league and missed time due to winters.
posted by yerfatma at 06:08 AM on June 08, 2007
Without looking, Grum, I'm gonna say Mike Piazza was drafted 1,390th in 1988. *goes to look* Hot damn!
posted by wfrazerjr at 10:06 AM on June 08, 2007
Oh, and thanks for the link, Grum. I ended up sponsoring Mark Little's page. It'll show up in the day or two, I think.
posted by wfrazerjr at 10:17 AM on June 08, 2007
Oh, to be McDowell. And he was released three times. Good stuff, grum. I love B-R (though I was disappointed to discover recently that they don't track Blown Saves or Save Percentage, at least as far as I can tell). It's jarring, but you have to remember some of these kids are just graduating high school and years away from competing at the major league level. There's a reason so few players jump right to the majors, and that's because they need training to clean up flaws, to find the position they should be playing, etc. I guess my expectation is that, given the size of the pool the first round should at least be dotted with the next Willie Mays -- hits everything, with power, runs like a deer, catches everything, canon arm. Even if the guy actually ends up being Torey Lovullo. I don't expect first round picks to actually pan out all Willie Mayslike a very large percentage of the time, but I would think the expectation or possibility of it would be seen in the top 20-30 kids throughout all of Amerada. I don't expect the first round picks to need work on things like how to throw a baseball.
posted by The Crafty Sousepaw at 10:24 AM on June 08, 2007
Have you not followed past drafts (he asked, not trying to sound snide)? My take, and I could be 100% wrong, based on watching these since 2000 or so is the rating system compares players to major league performance. It's a tough scale, but a useful and even one. Saying someone needs to work on throwing a baseball means (I think) they could not currently throw out major league runners from third base (or whereever they play). Rating players this way gives you a better picture of what the can contribute right now, as opposed to typical scouting material that compares players to their competition.
posted by yerfatma at 11:01 AM on June 08, 2007
I don't expect first round picks to actually pan out all Willie Mayslike a very large percentage of the time, but I would think the expectation or possibility of it would be seen in the top 20-30 kids throughout all of Amerada. Remember, even Willie Mays wasn't "Willie Mayslike" when he was a youngster. I believe the Braves passed over him when he was younger. I'd be curious to see what the reviews were for Alex Rodriguez when he was drafted. Everyone knew he'd be "good", but he must have had flaws that were in need of fixing. As well, possibly the scouts are covering their asses more by pointing out flaws that were previously ignored, just so they don't get roasted for recommending the next Van Poppel.
posted by grum@work at 11:21 AM on June 08, 2007
even Willie Mays wasn't "Willie Mayslike" when he was a youngster. I believe the Braves passed over him when he was younger. The Red Sox passed him over for having "double plus pigmentation".
posted by yerfatma at 11:33 AM on June 08, 2007
I'd be curious to see what the reviews were for Alex Rodriguez when he was drafted from an espn.com column a few weeks back, match the scouting report to the superstar.
posted by goddam at 11:33 AM on June 08, 2007
To better illustrate what I mean, I am reasonably okay with comments like these in the first round: Played shortstop in high school, but projects more as corner infielder in pros. Sometimes gets in trouble with command (38 walks), but teams can't overlook high ceiling. The knock on him is the lack of even an average off-speed pitch. Mechanics a bit raw, but should be easily smoothed out at next level. I am not okay with comments like these: Currently projects as No. 3-type starter in pros Considered below average defensively projects as a No. 2 or No. 8 hitter in a big league lineup His defensive ability behind the plate is a question mark. Could be middle-of-rotation pitcher at next level He is a reach as a first-round pick because of his questionable instincts as an outfielder and small stature. Terms like "below average," "questionable instincts," "middle of the rotation," and "No. 8 hitter" do not belong in assessments of first round picks, in my opinion. Granted we don't know the sources of these comments, and my comments are obviously conditional on the validity of these reports. In my opinion, there should be at least 30 people in the pool who can be described more like this: Has shown tremendous versatility, playing center field and first base and pitching during career, but projects as a right fielder at next level because of strong arm. Extremely patient at plate and rarely gets fooled. Bat speed and left-handed raw power should help him become slugger in pros. Was hitting .520 with eight HRs and 29 RBIs, along with 17 SBs this season. Grum: As well, possibly the scouts are covering their asses more by pointing out flaws that were previously ignored, just so they don't get roasted for recommending the next Van Poppel. I get your point, but I would think the scouts get a lot more bang out of touting Willie Mays (if he turns out to be Willie Mays) than they do in weeding out Todd Van Poppel (if he turns out to be Todd Van Poppel). Though I could be wrong.
posted by The Crafty Sousepaw at 11:48 AM on June 08, 2007
I think you are wrong: the likelihood of ever seeing a superstar is so low that you'd be out of the scouting business long before you saw one if you went around being fair. It's human nature to grade negatively and to cover your ass more than you take risks. As for the crappy reviews you've pasted, I guess some teams could have seen the guy on a different day. Or seen something else in him.
posted by yerfatma at 11:54 AM on June 08, 2007
What do you think the problem is, TCS? Do you think they are drafting the wrong players or that scouts are being too critical? I would guess that the guys in later rounds have even worse scouting reports.
posted by bperk at 12:06 PM on June 08, 2007
Yahoo surmised the Cardinals' pick was need based because he was projected as a supplemental or second round pick. Right. I'm sure they were thinking hey, we're weak up the middle, better solve that problem by taking an 18-year-old middle infielder straight out of high school. Forget the best available talent in the draft, because how else could we possibly get a decent middle infielder? I have to admit that this was a headscratcher for me as a Cardinals fan. The draftee is obviously not going to be ready when Eckstein's contract is up (at the end of this year), and I guess I think the Cardinals wasted an opportunity to get either someone who could move fast and help soon or take a shot on the top HS pitcher in the draft with the highest projected ceiling (Porcello). Time was, the Cardinals were willing to deal with Boras and big bonus demands (J.D. Drew, Rick Ankiel), but I guess not so much now. Terms like "below average," "questionable instincts," "middle of the rotation," and "No. 8 hitter" do not belong in assessments of first round picks, in my opinion. Granted we don't know the sources of these comments, and my comments are obviously conditional on the validity of these reports. Some of these terms are problematic, but others aren't. I don't really get into tracking prospects and player development, but major league talent is very valuable even further down the food chain (like middle- to back-of-the-rotation pitchers). It depends how you define these things, but there are probably no more than ten true number one pitchers in baseball right now, and that's being generous. (Yes, every team has a no. 1, but Gil Meche is not the same as Johan Santana.) If you look at the percentages of players that actually make it to the majors (including first round draft picks) and where they end up in terms of contributions, it's really a crap shoot. Some teams (like the Cardinals apparently) would rather take a guy who projects to be a no. 2 hitter with 10-15 HR power, decent defense and OBP but is considered fairly safe to at least hit those development milestones than take a shot with a high school pitcher who might be the next Chris Carpenter or might be out of baseball in three years if he can't get his control under ... em ... control. I don't pretend to understand it all, but I'm a lot more sympathetic to shooting for a player who can provide some contribution at the Major League level, even if it's not superstar performance. There just aren't that many potential clean-up hitters, staff aces, etc. available. Or the tools and resources just don't exist to see them at present (as with Piazza and Pujols, among many others).
posted by holden at 12:11 PM on June 08, 2007
I think you are wrong: the likelihood of ever seeing a superstar is so low that you'd be out of the scouting business long before you saw one if you went around being fair. You might well be right, I don't know the scouting system well enough to know how it works, but intuitively I would think it's a "publish or perish" situation where, yes, if you go too long without finding a superstar you do find yourself out of the business. As for the crappy reviews you've pasted, I guess some teams could have seen the guy on a different day. If these guys are getting signed in the first round (emphasis on "in the first round") because they went 4 for 4 on a Wednesday, then we're back to my theory that teams aren't spending any time at all on this draft. Or seen something else in him. Maybe his mom was hot? What do you think the problem is, TCS? See above. I think teams are tanking the amateur draft and their scouts are taking long vacations in Santo Domingo and Caracas. Of course, maybe it's closer to Holden's point -- teams are willing to drop a little in pure talent to keep from dealing with the Borases of the world. And holden: to just reply briefly, I'm not saying the guys who are going in the first round shouldn't be drafted at all. But do you think that any of the top 30 amateur baseball players in all of the US and Canada could have flaws as glaring and fundamental as those described here, to be seen by anybody who has spent some real time with them?
posted by The Crafty Sousepaw at 12:28 PM on June 08, 2007
And holden: to just reply briefly, I'm not saying the guys who are going in the first round shouldn't be drafted at all. But do you think that any of the top 30 amateur baseball players in all of the US and Canada could have flaws as glaring and fundamental as those described here, to be seen by anybody who has spent some real time with them? If the player is fairly projectable and has skills in other areas, most of the flaws you listed one could live with. "Below average defensively" sounds to me like Jason Giambi. Knowing what we know about Giambi's career, would he be considered a first round talent? I think so. "No. 3-type starter" -- Mike Mussina perhaps? Maybe more of a 2 at his prime, so let's say Jamie Moyer or Javier Vazquez or someone like that. Worth a first-round pick? I think so. "His defensive ability behind the plate is a question mark." Mike Piazza, anyone? "Projects as a No. 8 hitter in a big league line-up" -- Miguel Cairo? Okay, got me on that one. But the point is, there are very few major leaguers that you could look at and not find one or more significant flaws. But they're still very valuable. Hall of Famers, of course not. But worthy of a first round pick, I think so.
posted by holden at 12:58 PM on June 08, 2007
TCS, you're operating under the assumption of perfect information, that all correct knowledge about all baseball players in the US is available to all teams at all times (and that all actors are rational). The reality is it's much clumsier and different teams have different needs (as well as different valuation systems-- what would the 2002 Oakland draft have looked like if you just read the MLB scouting bureau reports?). The other thing is, as holden suggests, being able to find someone good enough to hit #8 in the majors in 4-5 years in the draft is a win. How many kids will get drafted this year? How many of them will see 100 MLB ABs?
posted by yerfatma at 01:06 PM on June 08, 2007
Perception and scouts' biases still play a role. Check out Baseball Prospectus' comments on Rounds 6-10: "The pick that stood out in the eighth round, without question, was Adam Mills going to the Red Sox. Mills led the nation with a 1.01 ERA on the season with Charlotte, and while he also had good strikeout numbers, he fell hard in the draft. Mills is a small, right-handed pitcher that throws from 85-88 mph."
posted by yerfatma at 01:48 PM on June 08, 2007
Mike Mussina was one of the top 5 or 6 pitchers in the American League while with the Orioles. If you draft a guy and you think his ceiling is as a #3 hitter or #1 pitcher and he becomes a #8 hitter or a #3 pitcher, I say you have a win. If you draft a guy and you say his ceiling when you draft him is a #8 hitter or a #3 pitcher, I say in three years you have a pretty good vice-president of a small insurance agency in Topeka. Again, I recognize the need to fill the bottom part of your roster with quality guys, but going into the first round with an eye on the bottom of your roster, given the size of the pool, gives me the impression you're not looking very hard. If Yahoo's review had a negative comment on everyone, then I would let the comments go as measurements relative to the average first round pick, but that doesn't seem to be the case. First round picks should have mega-tools - drafting poor defensive catchers because you're hoping it's Mike Piazza seems like a terrible strategy. On edit: yerfatma, I understand your comments that the scouting process is subjective, but for anybody to see a first round pick as "below average" in any skills or lacking in instinct in the game... I dunno, could anybody be that much of an outlier on these guys? It's not like saying, "not as good as everyone says he is."
posted by The Crafty Sousepaw at 01:54 PM on June 08, 2007
On edit: yerfatma, I understand your comments that the scouting process is subjective, but for anybody to see a first round pick as "below average" in any skills or lacking in instinct in the game... I dunno, could anybody be that much of an outlier on these guys? It's not like saying, "not as good as everyone says he is." I don't know too much about scouting, but I think it's pretty common knowledge that there are five main tools for position players -- hitting for average, hitting for power, fielding ability, speed, and arm strength. A true five tool player is very, very rare. I think A-Rod is a five-tool player and was considered to be such coming out of high school. But almost every other player, even elite talents, are simply average or below average in at least one of the five tools. Prince Fielder when drafted was known to be below average for speed (and maybe even for -- oh the irony -- fielding), but was still a first-round draft pick. He'll be an All-Star this year and probably finish in the top ten of the MVP vote. I think having mega-tools (or plus-plus as the scouts would say) at 2-3 of the five tools would probably be considered more than adequate for a first round talent.
posted by holden at 03:20 PM on June 08, 2007
The description of Adam Mills is rather intriguing. "Small, right-handed pitcher" might mean almost anything when it comes to ability. Save for the fact that he was left-handed, the description could apply to Bobby Shantz. He did pretty darn well in his career.
posted by Howard_T at 09:40 PM on June 08, 2007
Fastball sits in mid-90s and he mixes it well with outstanding slider and changeup. Projects as dominant staff ace. Sincerely, I hope the Rays catch a break with this guy -- he seems to be the real deal, a stud in the making. And why do the Yankees always get the last pick?