Padres 2008 Draft Odyssey
Thu, Jun 5, 2008
by Geoff Young
Grab a beverage, sit down, and get comfy. Well, maybe not that comfy; seriously, dude, have a little dignity.
As you know, MLB’s First-Year Player Draft is upon us. What’s in store for the Padres? Good question. Let’s take a look, shall we…
Draft Class Strengths and Weaknesses
Thursday, June 5, 2008
11 a.m. PT
ESPN2
MLB.com
XM 180 (names), 186 (commentary)
The 2008 draft class features plenty of first baseman and relievers, but not much in the way of college pitching and middle infielders. According to Grady Fuson (for some reason not by-lined in the online version), the Padres are looking to add catching depth, corner outfielders with power, pitching, and perhaps help at shortstop if there’s any to be found. He also notes that their emphasis in on procuring the best available talent, not filling any specific needs:
You never want to go into a draft and say this is what the big league club doesn’t have, so this is what we’re going to draft. If you need a shortstop and it’s a terrible draft for shortstops, do you still take a shortstop? That would be crazy.
This is the old “draft for talent, trade for need” axiom at work. Paul DePodesta echoes these sentiments at his blog, with one notable caveat:
Every team out there always needs more good players at every position, especially at the lower levels of the minor league system. Rarely do teams target players in the draft with their immediate Major League needs in mind, with the one exception being a top end reliever. In recent years more and more college relievers have been selected in the top rounds of the draft in hopes that they could get to the big leagues quickly to fill a role.
I am not a big fan of drafting relievers early, but sometimes it works. Washington’s Chad Cordero (#20 overall in 2003) is one recent example. Another first-rounder taken in that same draft, Ryan Wagner (now Cordero’s teammate), hasn’t met with the same kind of success, reminding us yet again that “safe” is a relative concept.
Also, if Kevin Towers has shown us anything during his tenure as Padres GM, it’s that there are plenty of ways — this season notwithstanding — to build a strong bullpen. This doesn’t mean a team should avoid college relievers altogether, of course, just that maybe they’re not the top priority.
Great, but how does all this jibe with what the Padres have done in recent years?
Padres Draft History and Tendencies
MB at Friar Forecast notes that about 70% of the Padres’ draft picks from 2005 to 2007 have been used on college players. Looking back even further, the Padres have had 54 picks in the first or first supplemental round since their inception in 1969. Out of those, five have gone onto become stars:
- Dave Winfield (1973, #4 overall)
- Kevin McReynolds (1981, #6)
- Andy Benes (1988, #1)
- Derrek Lee (1993, #14)
- Khalil Greene (2002, #14)
In other words, it happens about once every eight years or so. Several others — Mike Ivie, Dave Roberts, Bill Almon, Bob Owchinko, Andy Hawkins, Bob Geren, Jimmy Jones, Shane Mack, Thomas Howard, Scott Sanders, Joey Hamilton, Dustin Hermanson, Ben Davis, and Sean Burroughs — have enjoyed varying degrees of success.
Players That Interest Me at #23
Who do I like? Well, bearing in mind that I’m getting my information second- and third-hand (from what I consider reliable sources, but still), here are some “persons of interest” as they say on the cop shows. Those of you who have been following along the past couple weeks will recognize many of these names:
- Tanner Scheppers, RHP, Fresno State U. (bio | report)
Considered a potential top 10 pick just a few months ago, a shoulder injury has made him one of the wild cards of this class. Whoever picks Scheppers will be assuming a great deal of risk, something the Padres may be reluctant to do both on general principle and because of their recent experiences with Tim Stauffer, Cesar Carrillo, and Nick Schmidt. - Casey Kelly, SS/RHP, Sarasota (Fla.) HS (report)
The son of former big-league infielder Pat Kelly has a high ceiling but is committed to play quarterback at Tennessee. There are some concerns about Kelly’s bat and signability. - Jemile Weeks, 2B, U. of Miami (bio | report)
Rickie’s younger brother possesses offensive skills that the Padres covet. He gets on base and runs well, an excellent combination for Petco Park. He may move to center field, which is still a premium defensive position. Weeks is one of the few guys on my list who might legitimately be on the Padres’ radar. - Zach Collier, OF, Chino Hills (Calif.) HS (report)
Collier has crazy upside, but is raw. I don’t see the Padres taking on this much risk. - Anthony Hewitt, SS, Salisbury School (Conn.) (report)
Another unpolished guy with tools galore, Hewitt evokes comparisons to Ron Gant and Bo Jackson (!) for his athleticism. Reports on the degree to which Hewitt is or will be able to use that ability in a meaningful way are varied. History is littered with tremendously talented individuals who just weren’t very good at baseball — Reggie Abercrombie, Joe Borchard, Drew Henson, Michael Jordan, Ruben Rivera, to name a few.
Players That Might Interest the Padres at #23
Given what we think we know about how the Padres operate, here are a few players they might be targeting with their first pick:
- Andrew Cashner, RHP, Texas Christian U. (bio | report)
Cashner’s fastball runs 96-98 mph, but his command is spotty. He has been used as a starter and reliever in college, but has had more success out of the ‘pen. - Jason Castro, C, Stanford U. (bio | report)
Fuson has stated a desire to improve catching depth within the system, and Castro is the last of the big three. I don’t think he’ll slip to #23, but if he does, I imagine the Padres will give him serious consideration. - Weeks
- Ike Davis, 1B/OF, Arizona State U. (bio | report)
The son of former big-league reliever Ron Davis draws praise for his raw power and defensive abilities at first base. He also may be athletic enough to handle a corner outfield spot, although reports are mixed. Davis strikes me as a very Fuson-esque pick. He’s one of the more palatable “safe” guys in my estimation. - Ryan Perry, RHP, U. of Arizona (bio | report)
See Cashner. My fear is that the Padres will take one of these two relievers. - David Cooper, 1B, U. of California (bio | report)
Cooper is sort of a lesser version of Davis. He’s a borderline first-round pick who may end up being taken in the supplemental round instead. - Reese Havens, SS, U. of South Carolina (bio | report)
Consistent at bat and in the field, Havens has good pop for a middle infielder and draws praise for his makeup. As with Cooper, #23 might be a shade early for Havens. However, shortstop is a premium position so reaching for him isn’t out of the question. Havens also aligns well with the Padres’ preference for polished college guys.
Of these guys, I’d be happiest with Castro, Weeks, Davis, or Havens — roughly in that order. I don’t think Castro makes it to #23, and I’ve not heard anyone associate the Padres with Weeks. I’m bracing myself for one of the relievers, but I hope they don’t go that route.
Mock Drafts
What do the experts say? Plenty:
- Baseball America (Jim Callis), May 16, 2008: Ike Davis, 1B/OF, Arizona State U.. Yep. This is someone I imagine the Padres are seriously targeting. Assuming he’s available, Davis is a reasonable guess. The way Callis’ draft unfolds, I’d prefer to see the Padres take Weeks or possibly Hewitt, but I could live with Davis.
- MLB.com (Jonathan Mayo), May 28, 2008: Daniel Schlereth, LHP, U. of Arizona. This would be an overdraft and a mistake. Schlereth is a college reliever with a rocket arm, but… did I mention he’s a college reliever? Not really my thing. The way Mayo’s draft unfolds, I’d like Ethan Martin or Weeks, but I don’t see Martin slipping that far. Mayo is maintaining a blog as well, and his final projection (June 5) has the Padres taking Shooter Hunt (see Baseball Prospectus draft below). I’d be happy with Hunt.
- Minor League Ball (John Sickels and friends), May 31, 2008: Jake Odorizzi, RHP, Highland (Ill.) HS. Uh, no. The Padres haven’t taken a high school pitcher in the first round since 2000 (Mark Phillips). Of those 54 first and supplemental first round picks we mentioned earlier, a total of eight have been spent on high school pitchers. Only two ended up making a positive contribution at the big-league level: Andy Hawkins (1978) and Jimmy Jones (1982). Towers notes that “There are two high school arms we like a lot who are projected to go probably in the top 10 choices — if they slid to us, we’d take either of them.” I’m not sure who he has in mind, but I don’t think either of them is Odorizzi.
- Sickels also gives his own personal take and has the Padres tabbing Ryan Perry, which makes a lot more sense. In his scenario, I’d take Collier, Weeks, or Davis ahead of Perry.
- Baseball Prospectus (Kevin Goldstein), June 4, 2008: Shooter Hunt, RHP, Tulane. Hey look, a college pitcher with some upside. I hadn’t been targeting him, but Hunt would be a nice pick. Goldstein also mentions Havens, which seems reasonable, and Hewitt, which doesn’t. Quoth Goldstein: “That kind of player seems like the anti-definition of a Grady Fuson selection.” Yes, to say the very least. This could be a fascinating development if true.
- SaberScouting: 1-15 | 16-30 (Frankie Piliere and Kiley McDaniel), June 5, 2008: Lance Lynn, RHP, U. of Mississippi (Frankie), Havens (Kiley). Lynn? Yuck, that’s worse than Schlereth. They have the Phillies taking Hewitt or Aaron Hicks with the next pick. If Hicks somehow slips that far and the Padres don’t take him at #23, I’ll scream louder than I did when they passed on Michael Main last year. But Hicks seems to be a top 15 pick from what I can tell. I wonder if Hicks is one of the high school arms Towers alluded to the other day? Still, I don’t see him being available here.
- MadFriars (Ramiro Olivas Jr.). This is for the Padres only. They’ve got Texas outfielder Jordan Danks at #46. Danks strikes me as the type of player Fuson and company might covet, although this is perhaps too early. Junior college shortstop Tyler Ladendorf at #69 is a great idea, but I don’t see him lasting that long. My guess is if the Padres want him, they’ll need to pop him at #42 or maybe #46.
- Baseball Blogger Mock Draft (various, including yours truly), May 29 - June 1, 2008. I went with Cashner because that’s who I think the Padres would have taken at that point. Left to my own devices, I would have picked Collier or possibly Hewitt. We also did the supplemental first round, and I took Ladendorf at #42 and Oklahoma State shortstop Jordy Mercer at #46. Looks like Sickels also had us popping Ladendorf at #42. I think that pick just makes way too much sense. With luck, he’ll be there and the Padres like him as much as I do.
The Mercer pick is a reach. He’s a two-way player, and there were safer guys available — right-handers Zach Putnam and Bryan Price immediately leap to mind, but neither of them excited me much so I gambled. The players I was targeting with that pick — Wake Forest first baseman Allan Dykstra and Miami outfielder Dennis Raben — both went earlier than I’d expected and I kind of panicked, which is really stupid when you’ve got that much time to make your pick, but there it is.
My Wish List
This is nuts, but what the heck:
23. Weeks
42. Ladendorf
46. Dykstra or Raben
69. Adrian Nieto, C, American Heritage HS, Plantation, Fla.
Peter Friberg’s Wish List
Peter, our resident draft maven and all-around good guy, actually inspired me to create my wish list with one of his own:
23. Scheppers, Hewitt, or Collier
42. Hewitt or Mike Montgomery
46. Ladendorf
69. Nick Maronde or Aaron Weatherford
I would love to see the Pads take Hewitt or Collier with their first pick, but both strike me as a bit too risky for the current regime’s tastes. Maronde is a high-school left-hander who sounds intriguing. I took him at #69 in the BBMD — Nieto was my target, but he got scooped up 12 picks ahead of me.
Now What?
Well, we watch and we wait. And then we wait and we watch. And when that’s all done…
Meanwhile, there are places to follow this stuff. Here are a few:
- 2008 Draft Tracker (MLB.com)
- Baseball America Draft Blog (BA)
Also, Eric SanInocencio and I will be blogging the draft over at Baseball Digest Daily. And I’m hoping to have at least a brief recap of the Padres draft up on Friday.
More coffee, please…
Picking up where last year's version left off, the Ducksnorts 2008 Baseball Annual provides in-depth analysis of and commentary on the San Diego Padres. Get your copy today.
June 5, 2008 at 7:37 am
GY, thanks for the break down. This is really helpful for those of us who aren’t that familiar with the draft.
Anybody know if the draft is going to be carried live on XM or anything like that. Are we going to liveblog this biotch?
June 5, 2008 at 7:46 am
Wow, thanks for pub Geoff…
My wish list has changed (well not really, but some of those guys probably will not be there when I want them).
Original:
23. Scheppers, Hewitt, or Collier
42. Hewitt or Mike Montgomery
46. Ladendorf
69. Nick Maronde or Aaron Weatherford
Now…
23. Collier or Davis (Hewitt’s list of questions is growing, see Kevin Goldstein’s article at BP)
42. Ladendorf (Hewitt & Montgomery should be gone - if either is there, pop one of those two and take Ladendorf at 46)
46. Daniel Webb, Allan Dykstra, Zach Putnam
This is the first draft where I have had zero insight to where the Padres are pointed. BA just posted their Mock and have us taking Schlereth…
June 5, 2008 at 7:47 am
…oh, I still like Maronde at 69
June 5, 2008 at 7:52 am
Heck, I’ve been posting draft stuff over at the farm report. Here’s a repeat:
BA’s final mock draft is finally up, and they have us taking Daniel Schlereth, LH reliever out of Arizona. Big names that BA predicts to still be on the board at that point include Collier, Castro, Havens, and Kelly.
I really can’t see how a college reliever who has already undergone Tommy John surgery would represent the “best available player” if those other kids are there.
For what it’s worth, Schlereth ranks 60th on the BA list of draftable players. That would sure seem to suggest that he might be available with our supplemental picks rather than our very first one.
BA predicts Shooter Hunt to go at 24. I don’t know that he’d be included in my list of big names anymore; he seems to be this year’s equivalent of Nick Schmidt: supposedly durable with pretty good stuff but more pedestrian results than you’d expect.
BA does not have Hewitt going to anyone in the first round, but they do say that Philly and Colorado have interest in him.
June 5, 2008 at 7:58 am
If anyone cares, I answered my own question. Draft names at XM 180, draft commentary at XM 186.
June 5, 2008 at 7:58 am
TW, what’s your wish list?
June 5, 2008 at 8:01 am
Schlereth would be one of those picks that would just kill me. I watched him in hs and he’s one of those kids that is consistently overrated because his father was a professional athlete. He would be a mistake.
I saw Kelly play last year in FL and I would love to see him chosen, if they think he’s actually signable. That guy is good.
Otherwise, I’d like to see Weeks or Havens.
June 5, 2008 at 8:07 am
My own wishlist for 23 is:
1. Hewitt
2. Hunt
3. Collier
4. Havens
5. Ike Davis
What do I think the Padres will do?
1. Hunt (if he falls)
2. Havens
3. College reliever
4. Davis
5. Lynn
I will be very disappointed if we draft a college reliever and several of the above names are on the board, especially Hunt. Hunt was once seen as a top 15 pick and has apparently slipped. I think he has more upside than someone like Schmidt and would be a good value at 23. But mostly I would like them to draft a hitter. A reliever just screams signability to me. If its Schlereth, I agree with TW, how can one make the case that a lefthanded reliever, who has a past filled with injuries, is the BPA? I understand there may be a need to replace Hoffman in the very near future, but is this the best way to go about it?
June 5, 2008 at 8:08 am
#4@Tom Waits, #7@Winfield’s Ghost: Of the names I’ve seen mentioned, two scare the heck out of me: Schlereth and Lynn. I really don’t want to see us go that route.
#5@Phantom: Thanks, man, I’ve added those up top. Ah, XM 186; that would explain why tonight’s game isn’t on XM at all…
June 5, 2008 at 8:40 am
Scheppers is way too risky, reportedly he may have a labrum injury in his throwing shoulder. But with the Padres history, maybe he makes sense — the inevitable injury happens now, instead of later!
What I don’t understand is why they wouldn’t take a high school pitcher. Their one success (I’ll leave Greene out of it since he’s basically the same player as when they drafted him, he hasn’t improved a bit) is Jake Peavy, a high school pitcher. They’ve pretty much failed everywhere else (which is another argument for taking a reliever, they haven’t tried that yet) so why not try something that has worked?
June 5, 2008 at 8:42 am
I started researching more about the other teams will do and Weeks will likely NOT be available for us (as most of you probably know). The Mets covet him and have 2 picks before us 18 & 22.
Re. Schlereth: I don’t think he’s overrated b/c of his father, I think he’s highly rated b/c of his father. Success is hard work. He witnessed his dad’s work ethic to succeed. Now, that said, I don’t WANT Schlereth, but if we got him at 42 or 46 (as long as it was not at the expence of Ladendorf) I wouldn’t mind.
I’m seeing more informed Mocks that have Davis picked ahead of us. I’m thinking it might be Hunt or Collier (the Collier choice is me reading between the line - heck, it’s me writing the story between the lines).
June 5, 2008 at 8:44 am
#6@Peter Friberg: My “wish list” has been Ike Davis … but KG’s description in his chat yesterday as “not athletic enough to play OF” has me worried. I wish I’d have seen him play … has anyone here seen him play? Eh, I guess it won’t matter if the Padres don’t draft him. My wish list is “best bat available” … and I think that might be Ike Davis, a guy who might slip a bit in draft position just due to an injury in the middle of the season. In other words, if he doesn’t get injured and continued to put up the #s he was putting up, then it seems like he’d have been a top15, if not top10 pick … that seems like value at #23.
TW? This question (what’s your wish list?) was actually directed at you … and I’d be interested to see your wish list too. Any others? Now’s the time to lay the “I told you so” foundation …
June 5, 2008 at 8:53 am
Geoff & I were talking, Ike was a pitcher, so he has a RF’s arm. I’ve heard conflicting reports about his athleticism.
MiLB is reporting the Rays are taking Tim Beckham #1
June 5, 2008 at 8:56 am
#11@Peter Friberg: Yeah, I agree because I think it’s really one and the same. He’s highly rated because scouts hope the work ethic is there and they are willing to overlook things that aren’t necessarily there because of that. I just don’t buy that the work ethic should trump what would otherwise be a very average skill set for his position.
June 5, 2008 at 8:58 am
Here’s a general question for you … would you prefer the Padres take a player whose stock is falling … or a player whose stock is rising … or a player whose projection has stablized in the 20-25 range?
A player whose stock is falling would seem to get a label of “value pick” …
A player whose stock is rising will be labeled “a reach” …
A player whose stock has stablized will be labeled as “a safe pick” …
Then, to mix subjects in my post, I wish one of you folks who rant on wanting “high upside” would post a list of players with “high upside” … and make the list long enough so that the risk will be obvious 3-5 years from now (ie. make it so that there’s at least 10 players who will still be on the board at #23). We all know that list starts with Hewitt … I’m fine with the Padres passing on Hewitt @ #23 … if he doesn’t get taken higher than #23, he’s going to Vandy …
June 5, 2008 at 8:58 am
Geoff/Anybody - how does the Pads 70% of players drafted being from college compare to the rest of the league? I am not a draft-nik, so based on comments that I have read here since finding this site, I am guessing that is high, but using terms stolen from Spaceballs, is that high, really high, rediculously high or ludicrously high?
June 5, 2008 at 9:08 am
Wish List, somewhat filtered for who should be available:
23: Collier, Havens, Hunt, Castro
42 / 46: Ladendorf, Gillaspie (who seems to have fallen off mock drafts), Galloway, Spruill (actually several HS pitchers would be great here)
69: Be tempted to grab Brett Hunter here. Big risk, but as a college kid more likely to be an affordable one. He might even last to 101.
June 5, 2008 at 9:20 am
The two high school arms that could go in the top 10 and may drop to the Padres has to be Cole and Hicks. In all three mock drafts (BA, BP, MLB) Hicks goes either 14th or 12th, while 2 have Cole going 21st (to the Tigers) with the MLB mock leaving him out of the first round. So it’s possible Cole will be there. However, I don’t see how the Padres could pass on Porcello (a much higher regarded pitcher) to take a lower regarded pitcher with huge makeup concerns.
June 5, 2008 at 9:22 am
#15@LynchMob: If you want people to post information, perhaps it would be better not to characterize their presentation as “ranting.”
Where Hewitt gets picked will have much less to do with his choice than the numbers he is offered. If a team picks him in the 13th round and gives him enough money, he’ll turn pro.
#16@Farquaad: It’s higher than 70% if we count what matters, which is players we signed. I don’t mind a college-centric approach, as long as there is some mix of premium talent (which necessarily includes signing more than a few token HS kids). Other teams have gone college-heavy in the recent past, but most of them have modified their approach after not seeing the returns they wanted. The Blue Jays are a prime example. The Red Sox draft slightly more college players than HS kids, but they sign more of them. Not that they don’t miss; they didn’t close the deal with Pedro Alvarez and Kyle Snyder out of HS, and they couldn’t convince LaPorta to take their offer
June 5, 2008 at 9:27 am
#18@Schlom: The latest BA blog says the talk of Cole to Detroit has died down. I agree with you in terms of his desirability, Cole has mechanical questions along with other concerns. He’s no Porcello in terms of risk/reward, although he could turn out better of course.
June 5, 2008 at 9:29 am
TW I’m w/ you on Collier. He’s really my first choice (assuming other I like more are taken).
June 5, 2008 at 9:30 am
Well put Lynch
June 5, 2008 at 9:31 am
#18@Schlom: I was going to post first thing this morning with a general question: How long until Schlom invokes the name Porcello? Apparently, it was 18 posts.
#10@Schlom: I think you are saying this tongue-in-cheek but I’m not sure. I hope you wouldn’t base your draft strategy around one successful 15th round pick.
June 5, 2008 at 9:35 am
#15@LynchMob: Well said. We get a lot of requests for higher upside players on this site with little or no mention of specific names. That makes it pretty easy to bash any and every pick that is made by the Padres while claiming that you knew better.
June 5, 2008 at 9:37 am
#19@Tom Waits: re: characterization … point taken, thanks … I’ve been having the same issue in dealings with IT support folks lately, and it is counter-productive …
June 5, 2008 at 9:41 am
#15@LynchMob:
#22@Peter Friberg:
As we all know, there will be high-upside picks who no team will take at 23, and in fact would be too risky there. A lot depends on which pick we’re talking about. Jordan Danks is a huge reach at 23, even though he has very good upside. At 101 that could be a solid pick.
June 5, 2008 at 9:49 am
#24@BigWorm: People have mentioned all kinds of high-upside names. GY’s entire early draft review was high-upside players. And during last year’s draft discussion, people brought up tons of names as the Padres picked. Michael Main. Michael Burgess. Nevin Griffith. Matt Harvey. It just makes no sense to try to compile a list of “high upside” players as if there’s one defining characteristic. It all depends on who is still on the board compared to who the Padres take.
Even when / if the Padres pop somebody who won’t immediately settle for slot, they still have to sign him. Tommy Toledo was a good buy in the 3rd round last year, solid upside. So was Christian Colon several rounds later. Good picks, but unless you get them to sign on the line that is dotted, no practical effect. The Padres don’t pick many high-upside players….some, not many. They sign a very small number of them.
June 5, 2008 at 9:58 am
If you’d like to be a little more excited about the prospect of drafting Shooter Hunt, here’s a scouting report on him from an outing in the Cape Cod league last summer. Plus, just focus on the name Shooter Hunt. How could a guy named Shooter Hunt be a bad pick?
http://saberscouting.wordpress.....er-hunter/
June 5, 2008 at 9:59 am
#23@BigWorm: Sort of a joke but when you drafted as poorly as the Padres have, you might as well point to your successes!
I also brought up Porcello only because Towers claims that the Padres may take a highly regarded high school pitcher who drops because of perceived bonus demands. However, if they didn’t do it last year why would they do it this year? That was my basic point, not complaining about the problem last year (I’ve done enough of that). Even if Cole drops to the Padres I’m not even sure they should draft him — the reports of his attitude and maturity level are kind of frightening.
June 5, 2008 at 10:03 am
#28@Ben B.: It’s a great name, and 3 months ago I’d have been very excited about him dropping to 23. But his loss of effectiveness as the season went on worries me some. Like I mentioned before, it sounds eerily like Schmidt.
June 5, 2008 at 10:03 am
Here’s something from the BA blog:
The Gerrit Cole to Detroit talk has stopped, and BA’s best guess now is that the hard-throwing California righthander falls to the Yankees at 28. What happens with the Tigers, however, is tougher to gauge. They’re probably going to wind up with another starting righthander, possibly Tulane’s Shooter Hunt or Georgia prep righty Ethan Martin, if he’s on the board. Another prep righty who could be there is Missouri prep righthander Tim Melville, who is falling and apparently won’t be the Cubs’ pick at 19. Melville had an uneven spring and also has informed teams through a letter that he will not sign unless he’s treated like a top-15 pick. He’s a North Carolina recruit.
That the Tigers are interested in Hunt makes me think that he’s worth a pick as they are really good at identifying good pitchers. Unfortunately they pick before the Padres. I wonder if Melville is one of the high school pitchers that could drop that Towers is targeting?
June 5, 2008 at 10:12 am
TW … what sources do you use to determine if a player is “high upside”? That way, a determination of Padres’ picks can be made after-the-draft … and take into account “which pick we’re talking about”.
re: “one defining charactertistic” … it sure seems like it’s become a common knock on the Padres that they don’t pick / sign enough “high upside players” … to the point where those making that knock treat it as a single defining characteristic … and that’s what ruffles my feathers … I read DePo as saying that to some extent all these guys have “high upside” … reaching MLB is “high” and every pick that the Padres make is with the expectation that the player can and will reach MLB …
Are you the “Tom” getting Q&A-time with DePo in his blog?
June 5, 2008 at 10:17 am
I’ll be cool with Collier, Hewitt, Hunt, Cole, Castro and probably a few others.
As long as we don’t take a reliever I will probably be cool. In the other picks I would love to see the Padres take any one of Galloway, Ladendorf, Nick Maronde, Brandon Crawford, Allan Dykstra, Sclereth, Jordan Danks. I think there are definitely some interesting names that will fall and I hope the Padres can take advantage of one or 2 of them. No harm in aquiring some + talent in this draft.
June 5, 2008 at 10:19 am
#27@Tom Waits: One thing I’m wondering — and I actually mentioned this in the book (under comments on Jeremy McBryde) — is how the elimination of the draft & follow process might affect the Padres’ decision making. Many of our high-risk/reward pitchers have gone that route — Latos, Miller, McBryde. It will be interesting to see whether the FO chooses to be a little more aggressive now that this option is no longer available.
June 5, 2008 at 10:27 am
#30@Tom Waits: I never read any reports on Schmidt that indicated he had anything close to the stuff Hunt has. Schmidt’s a lefty, he doesn’t need stuff! With Schmidt, it seemed more like the reports of him going higher in the first round were to teams that wanted to save money or take someone safe, now because he actually deserved to go that high. Sure, Hunt is a risk, but that’s why he’s available at 23 instead of being taken at 10.
June 5, 2008 at 10:34 am
#29@Schlom: Yeah, Cole concerns me as well - especially since if he decides to go to college (not likely if the Tigers or Yankees draft him), he’ll be at my alma mater and the attitude issues frighten me.
I was messing around with the Porcello comment - the Nick Schmidt pick looked bad even before he got injured.
June 5, 2008 at 10:39 am
#32@LynchMob: “High upside” can be a number of things. A 3rd round pick who has 70 power but below-average athleticism is an upside pick, because he could be an elite hitter even though he’s not the 4 or 5 tooler you’d want earlier in the draft. Upside = potential impact player, in my mind. Not probable role player (although that’s where most guys end up).
If you accept that definition of “upside” from DePo, then gosh, why aren’t the Padres doing better? They have 25 high-upside players on the major league roster right now! That’s right up there with saying that Brad Chalk is a high upside player. Yes, in terms of the general baseball playing population, even playing one pro game represents immense achievement. But unless they’re going to give him gene therapy, do they really think he’s got (e.g.) Johnny Damon bat potential?
There have been a number of requests that critics of the Padres draft strategy supply names, suggested rankings, etc. In return, why don’t those who believe the Padres are doing just fine provide some answers of their own?
1. How many “durable college starters” need to go down before you question the team’s approach? Two more? Four?
2. When Baseball America and other experts ranked the Padres system last, or next to last, the team and its defenders said that the rankings were unfair. Now that the team ranks higher, those are the first clubs out of the bag when the farm system is discussed. How is it possible for people to accept praise from certain experts but ignore criticism from the same sources?
June 5, 2008 at 10:41 am
SI.com has an interesting profile on Matt Bush. I’m surprised this is front page material: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.c.....index.html
June 5, 2008 at 10:42 am
#36@BigWorm:
The Cole attitude issues don’t really bother until I know what they are. It sounds like from everything I have heard scouts think he is cocky. They said the same about Latos and Strasburg a couple of years ago. I would rather have a cocky kid that knows he’s good out there on the mound than some mental lightweight that is going to fold under the bright lights and crowds. To me it seems like if Scott Boras wasn’t his agent scouts and teams would be talking about his strong Clemens like demeanor on the mound. I don’t know the kid could be a mental case too but until I hear some examples or something it just sounds like a smokescreen.
June 5, 2008 at 10:54 am
Here’s something Paul R and I talked about this morning…
Kevin Goldstein said that in the first round you pick guys that could become super-stars. It’s really the only way to acquire a super-star (other trading a potential superstar(s) for an actual one)…
June 5, 2008 at 10:54 am
I guess it’s just me, but I can’t help but think of Shooter McGavin when I read Shooter Hunt, which doesn’t really inspire me to think well of young Mr. Hunt.
June 5, 2008 at 10:58 am
Revised & ranked wish list for 23:
Zach Collier
Ike Davis
Anthony Hewitt
Shooter Hunt
At least one of those guys will be available…
June 5, 2008 at 10:58 am
#41@Pat: You wouldn’t love to have a pitcher out there on the mound blowing smoke off his fingers after every strikeout?
June 5, 2008 at 11:04 am
Interesting article on Bush. Thanks for posting it. I will definitely be interested to see how he comes back from surgery.
June 5, 2008 at 11:05 am
#43@Ben B.: Well, yeah, but McGavin was such a jerk.
June 5, 2008 at 11:07 am
#39@KRS1: It’s not just Cole’s cocky attitude that’s a red flag, it’s also reported that his teammates don’t like him. He supposedly very immature. Now these are just reports so it may or may not be overblown but those are pretty serious negatives.
June 5, 2008 at 11:07 am
#40@Peter Friberg: That’s a nice thumbnail for “upside.” And it’s basically the main point of the pro-upside crowd. The Padres are not going to pay for elite free agents. That’s not a criticism (although people who blasted the Cubs for doing it might want to look at the standings both last year and this), but it cuts off one avenue. You can try trading for one, but you can’t make someone trade with you, and you have to give up talent to do it, which may hamper your ability to compete. Drafting and signing players gives you control over the WHO, the HOW LONG, and largely the HOW MUCH.
And upside, going to other points, is NOT synonymous with raw, or high school, or extremely expensive. If the Padres had switched places with the Pirates last year, I’d like to know if anyone thinks we would have picked Wieters rather than Moskos.
June 5, 2008 at 11:07 am
While I would have preferred Porcello, I take issue with the idea that Schmidt was a bad pick. Injuries are a concern with every pitcher that will be taken in the draft today–throwing a baseball is an unnatural thing and it does damage to pitchers arms, even those with seemingly perfect mechanics (look at the scouting reports on Mark Prior when he came out).
That being said, I do believe that the draft is the prime (perhaps the only) place where teams like the Padres can acquire superstar talent. For that reason, I’m keeping Hewitt near the top of my wish list this year. He’d bring athleticism to the system and be a possible impact talent.
Wish List @ 23
1. Melville
2. Hewitt
3. Hunt
4. Collier
I think that Towers was talking about Hicks and Melville when he mentioned arms…I hope that Melville gets to us.
June 5, 2008 at 11:11 am
28: Thanks for the link to the Hunt article–it’s a good read. Encouraging to hear him described as “high upside” and worthy of a 10-20 pick.
June 5, 2008 at 11:13 am
#37@Tom Waits: I think you’re going to be waiting awhile to hear from those who think the Padres are “doing just fine”. I may be wrong, but I’m pretty sure everyone on this board agrees that they have royally screwed up in most drafts since 1999.
June 5, 2008 at 11:18 am
#46@Schlom:
Again I don’t know the situation but it isn’t all that hard to believe that his high school teamates wouldn’t like him. You have a team full upper middle class kids that all have dreams of being the next superstar but all the team scouts and agents/advisors are there to watch 1 guy. It could be because he’s a **** but it could be for plenty other reasons as well.
June 5, 2008 at 11:23 am
#51@KRS1: Basically all I can go on is the scouting reports - which is basically what all of us are using for our wish lists. Who has the time to actually see these kids in person? We’re on Ducksnorts all day!
I agree, I’m fine with taking a kid who is cocky and knows he is good. But taken to the extreme that kid can be a cancer. Look at Kobe circa 2004 vs. Kobe circa 2008. In 2004 he destroyed that team. In 2008 he is making others around him better, yet he is still cocky and knows he is the best guy on the court.
June 5, 2008 at 11:25 am
#50@BigWorm: There sure seems to be a lot of push-back from some of those everyone’s in response to people asking for a greater diversity of draft picks (and signs).
I’m also interested in the BA (and other experts) question. I’ll just use BA as shorthand for a group of prospect experts. Many folks have written recently that criticism is unwarranted or off-base “because BA says we moved up several rankings.” But two years ago it was “BA isn’t giving us enough credit” or “they don’t know what they’re talking about.” And to this day BA’s frequent criticisms of teams that adhere to slot and largely stay out of the high school pool are largely brushed off by a certain group of fans.
June 5, 2008 at 11:25 am
#47@Tom Waits: (although people who blasted the Cubs for doing it might want to look at the standings both last year and this)
Did people really blast the Cubs for this? I think they caught some flak for Soriano, who may be overpaid considering his production (I’m certainly not able to do player valuations the way some do), but I think most of what they were criticized for were signings like DeRosa and Eyre. Maybe I just wasn’t paying close enough attention. Did they get blasted for Fukodome? I know Padres fans were disappointed we were outbid by them, but I’m not sure if people thought it was a bad signing, or even if he could be considered an “elite” free agent.
Also, when it comes down to it, I think their success this year has as much or more to do with guys like Theriot, Soto, Dempster and a few others having great years than it does free agent signings. I mean other than Fukodome, who has not been a difference maker thus far, imo, what elite free agents did they bring in to make the difference between last year and this?
June 5, 2008 at 11:26 am
#52@BigWorm:
Kobe is a bad comparisson but I know what you are getting at.
June 5, 2008 at 11:28 am
I’m in the crowd that says the Padres are doing “pretty good.” I don’t know if I’d say it was “fine.” That said, the Padres HAVE screwed up MOST of the drafts since 1998. However, since the Bush-debacle, I think they’ve done quite well; especially in ‘05 & ‘06 (the current front office). Likewise I’m excited about this draft.
I simply do not believe the “college reliever” rumors (although I could understand Perry b/c he supposedly could be a front-line starter).
June 5, 2008 at 11:29 am
#52@BigWorm: Did he destroy the team or were his teammates just not very good?
It’s funny, because a buddy of mine went to a team-building exercise this week, and the facilitator used Kobe as a negative example. My buddy interrupted the exercise to say “You know he’s in the NBA finals, right?”
Good for KC.
June 5, 2008 at 11:35 am
Matusz goes #4; go Torreros!
June 5, 2008 at 11:37 am
#58@Pat: Woo-hoo! That is so cool for him and the school.
June 5, 2008 at 11:37 am
#50@BigWorm: Screwed up drafts prior to the SA hiring have no bearing on my opinion that they are “doing just fine” since then. If I didn’t think they were “doing just fine”, then I’d not be supporting the team by buying tickets to games whenever I’m in town. I like the results on the field the past couple of years … both on the big club and in the farm system.
So, onto the questions …
1. How many “durable college starters” need to go down before you question the team’s approach? Two more? Four?
10 … and Carillo and Schmidt don’t count if they ever do pitch for the Padres, which I think is a 50/50 proposition at this point … well, perhaps it’s 50/50 for Carillo and 30/70 for Schmidt …
2. When Baseball America and other experts ranked the Padres system last, or next to last, the team and its defenders said that the rankings were unfair. Now that the team ranks higher, those are the first clubs out of the bag when the farm system is discussed. How is it possible for people to accept praise from certain experts but ignore criticism from the same sources?
When BA ranked the Padres last, I think they were being fair and realistic … and I think the organization acknowledged a problem and made a radical change in personel … and it’s a change that I really like. I’m a huge SA fan. I wish the team had an owner who projected more of a agressive-spending attitude (by actually aggressively spending on players), but that’s not what we have.
June 5, 2008 at 11:39 am
#54@Pat: Oh yes, last year when some of us suggested the Padres might have spent a bit more on free agents (there were some who suggested big-ticket names as well), one common response was “Do you want the Padres to end up like the Cubs?” That was before the Cubs took off and won the division, of course.
They have 2 starting OF with OPS+ over 116, and both required big free agent money. Ramirez and Lee were both big money guys, too.
They are getting contributions from unexpected sources, but those aren’t as valuable as the contributions they’re getting from guys they paid big-time money for over the last few years.
June 5, 2008 at 11:41 am
SF nabs Posey. I’d have thought they’d go Smoak.
#56@Peter Friberg: That 2005 draft, to my skeptical eye, looks like Headley and spare parts. But I don’t see much hope for Carrillo, less for Ramos and Geer, and I think Venable is a stretch in CF, which makes his bat hard to play.
June 5, 2008 at 11:46 am
#60@LynchMob: Carrillo and Schmidt don’t count? They’ll end up burning 2 years of minor league time not developing. They’re untradeable. That hardly seems like a good ROI. There’s nothing wrong with drafting college pitchers, as long as you mix in high schoolers and don’t buy high on an attribute (durability) that is often illusory.
BA (et al) are still highly critical of the slot-adhering / college-heavy approach. Implemented well or not, it limits your possibilities, especially your chance of drafting a superstar.
June 5, 2008 at 11:46 am
#57@Tom Waits: Well, he had Shaq just coming down from his prime, Karl Malone well past his prime but still putting up 13 and 8 every game, a not-quite-cooked Gary Payton playing point and solid backups at every position, not to mention one of the greatest coaches in NBA history. They were a virtual unanimous pick to beat the Pistons in 4 or 5 games in the finals. His teammates weren’t the issue (although Malone not playing in the Finals was a big reason for the loss).
After the season he ran off Shaq and the coach - so yes, he destroyed the team.
And it wasn’t until he learned to play within the team concept this year that the Lakers thrived. He grew up, it happens. But read Jackson’s book about the ‘04 season. . .Kobe absolutely destroyed that team.
June 5, 2008 at 11:53 am
#62@Tom Waits: Why don’t you hold out much hope for Carillo? The injury is scary, but I don’t think his ability to pitch well will be gone. He is the one that I still think can turn out pretty well.
June 5, 2008 at 11:57 am
#64@BigWorm: It’s hard for me to see a team that went to the Finals as being destroyed, or Kobe “learning” something he apparently knew well enough from 1999 to 2002. We might want to give a little credit to the Pistons, too. It’s not like they weren’t a very good team that got hot.
I’d probably read that book wondering how a great coach like Jackson managed to lose control of his team, rather than accepting that Bryant destroyed it (and that Jackson would then come back).
June 5, 2008 at 12:01 pm
So, any “surprises” thus far this year?
June 5, 2008 at 12:02 pm
#65@Coronado Mike:
At a meta-level, I’m skeptical of all young pitchers.
At a high level, having TJ surgery before you hit the major leagues is a red flag.
I loved the Carrillo pick. But he’s only pitched maybe 100 healthy professional innings; he spent most of 06-06 hurt. It’s hard to develop your skills when you’re not playing.
June 5, 2008 at 12:05 pm
#67@Phantom: Did Posey to SF surprise anyone else?
June 5, 2008 at 12:05 pm
#67@Phantom: Quoting ESPN…
Alonso is the first surprise of the draft. It’s a surprise because they weren’t linked to him and he’s asking for $8 million and a major league deal. He’s a left-handed power hitter with a very patient approach, and he should hit for quite a bit of power at Great American Ballpark. What does this mean for Joey Votto?
June 5, 2008 at 12:06 pm
There goes Castro.
June 5, 2008 at 12:08 pm
#69@Tom Waits: I was kind of surprised by that since he reportedly wanted so much money.
And what’s with the Astros popping Castro this early? Seems odd.
June 5, 2008 at 12:08 pm
At least we’re not the Astros, taking Jason Castro instead of Justin Smoak.
June 5, 2008 at 12:09 pm
#66@Tom Waits: Well, I guess that depends on your expectations. If that season had you predicting that the Lakers would lose in the Finals and then end up in NBA oblivion for three years. . .then hey, expectations met!
Are you trying to say that Kobe was an unselfish player from 1999 through 2002? What part of his game / attitude gave you that one? Or was it more like they Lakers won those years so Kobe clearly was doing something right? More likely: The Lakers won those years because Shaq was UNSTOPPABLE.
Of course, blame it on the coach! I don’t know, I’m usually inclined to give a guy with nine rings the benefit of the doubt. I think he knows what he’s doing.