BA Top 25 Prospects, mid-season edition
Also known as "Mark Shapiro's shopping list." Of interest to us is that only 7 of the top 25 are pitchers (and only 20 of the top 50), which lends some credence to the idea that young, premium arms are notably scarce this season.
Listed Indians include Santana at 7 and LaPorta at 22. Chisenhall and Weglarz! make "The Next 25."
over 2 years ago
fleerdon
93 comments
0 recs |
Email
PrintComments
MLE OPSs of the listed Indians:
Weglarz: 646 (though it’s in the mid-700s if you throw out April)
Chisenhall: 627
Santana: 684
LaPorta: 791
by fleerdon on Jul 9, 2009 4:35 PM EDT reply actions
NO PEACE.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on Jul 9, 2009 6:02 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Jason Heyward, the #1 prospect, was drafted with the pick directly after the Indians picked Beau Mills.
So, Jason Heyward, the #1 prospect, was drafted with the pick directly after the Indians picked Beau Mills.
You know who used to be #1? Andy Marte.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on Jul 9, 2009 9:50 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
I wanted the Indians to draft him at the time. Of course, I know very little about that sort of thing, but he looked really good to me.
I did too. I knew the Braves would take him if he fell to their slot, him being a Georgia kid and all, but I thought his well-scouted plate discipline and his intelligence (I believe he was heading for Dartmouth?) would win out over the Tribe’s reluctance to draft a prep schooler that high.
The Indians seem to favor big-league legacies maybe even a little more than intelligence. Neither habit has really panned out from what I can tell. We’ve had about six guys from Stanford, of whom Garko has panned out the best. In the other column, Mills and Barfield have both sunk like stones.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
Indeed. In my mind I always thought Mills’ inability to actually play a position well as a draftee outweighed his exposure to big league clubhouses as a youngster.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again – the Tribe’s preference for their #1 picks seems to the probability that they make a good transition to minor league pro ball rather than how they project as a major leaguer.
Of course, the most recent, Alex White, seems to satisfy both counts. I hope the announcement that he’s heading for the pen doesn’t hurt the chances of him being signed. If I were him, I’d want to the opportunity to prove myself as a starter first, and I’d ask that question during negotiations.
To me, the conversation about the Indians and first-round picks starts and ends with where they actually pick. Mills might be a bust at 13; Chisenhall, a find at 29. But outside the top ten, them’s the breaks. The talent will be inferior, and one characteristic of inferior talent is that it is less predictable. One reason why I’m curious about the 2010 draft, when the Indians will actually be making the choice between top talent and affordability in the first round.
Still. Every time I think about the draft, I make myself think about 1996’s ten-million-dollar man, Matt White. Perspective, you know?
by fleerdon on Jul 9, 2009 11:47 PM EDT up reply actions
It certainly comes down to where you pick, but more to the point, its who is available WHEN you pick. Pre-draft top 10 players drop into the lower half all the time, mostly for financial reasons, but sometimes because of other team’s set preferences. Aubrey and White are recent picks that fell to us outside of the top 10.
They also seem to favor lower-ceiling, but safer, college prospects rather than higher-ceiling, but riskier, high school players.
by FallsTribeFan on Jul 9, 2009 10:46 PM EDT up reply actions
So glad you’re giving me a chance to re-post this, FTF.
Here’s a comment that reflects something I’ve seen a lot of lately, here and elsewhere.
[The Indians’] failure not to begin drafting younger players with higher ceilings is just not defensible.
Okay, I’ve had enough of this. There’s a fallacy in here — that there are scores of hotshot prep players and the Indians have pointedly ignored them just because they might cost a little more.
If you look at almost any so-called "safe" college pick taken in the middle-upper rounds, you’ll very often find that he was drafted low in high school and went to college because he didn’t get enough money to dissuade him from doing so (or, that he was not drafted at all because teams expected him to be in this position). If he had gone to college and completely excelled, he wouldn’t be a "safe" pick, he’d be a no-doubt first-rounder. Next question: Why didn’t he get taken in an earlier round as a high schooler? Because he wasn’t good enough in high school to merit the financial risk. If he had been, again, you’re talking a no-doubt first-rounder.
Exclude from the discussion, then, those first-round talents, and what do you have left? College players with flaws, and high schoolers who have lots of strong incentives not to sign. As between those two, if you take primarily the high schoolers, you’re either going to dramatically overpay an inferior player to convince him to skip college, or you’re going to waste your pick. I think, when Brad Grant says (in literally every interview) that the Indians make a point of using all 50 rounds, this is what he means: Taking guys they can sign, which usually means college players.
I’ll assume you know all that. That means you’re talking about the Indians’ first-round picks. Coupla thoughts there: 1. There are maybe 12 truly exceptional players per draft, in a good year, and they usually go in the first 13-ish rounds. How many top-15 picks have the Indians had? Top-10? Top-5? As bad as we’ve been, we are not freaking Tampa Bay. 2. Besides Sowers and maybe Crowe, which recent Indians’ first-round pick is "low-ceiling"? Huff — projected to be a 3rd or 4th starter? Snyder — projected to be a starting center fielder? Aubrey — projected to be a starting first baseman? Mills — considered to have the most power in that draft? How about Adam "Mr. 100" Miller? Hell, look up Crowe’s Arizona stats; he may have been a questionable first-rounder, but don’t tell me the dude wasn’t an awesome NCAA player. Sure, there were better player in those drafts. By and large, they were taken by teams with higher overall picks.
Plus, I’ve got news for you: Promising high school baseball players can blow up just as easily as any kind. You want to talk about some high-ceiling prep players? How about Corey Smith? How about Dan Denham? Good lord, people. Didn’t we learn our lesson? It wasn’t time for the Indians to "begin" drafting prep players in the first round. It was time for them to stop.
While I’m at it: Assume everything I’ve written was wrong. How do you then explain Haley and House, two of the highest-ceiling prep arms in last year’s draft? Are they just complete aberrations? Or are they the product of an organizational draft strategy that will take a flier on a high schooler if it’s not totally moronic to do so?
So basically, the criticism of the Indians for not drafting "younger, higher ceiling" players amounts to criticizing them for finishing too high in the year-end standings, and to admitting that you don’t actually follow the draft except to the extent that you whine about it. Mind you, I can’t even argue, after all this, that "safe" drafting is necessarily the right thing to do, to the extent that the Indians do it. But … the Indians’ "failure" to pursue prep players is perfectly defensible. If you want young, high-ceiling talent, start following the Dominican Summer League squad and get back to me in five years.
There might well be criticisms to make about the Indians’ amateur scouting — as in, “They were identifiably wrong about Beau Mills because of factors X, Y, and Z, which should have been apparent to them at the time of the draft.” I have yet to read a cogent criticism of the Indians’ general dislike of paying big bonuses to prep players, which seems like good financial sense to me unless you’re getting a truly superior talent. Refusing to pay big money to Jason Heyward, knowing you’ve got 49 other guys to worry on, well, I submit that if it were your $8-10 million in draft budget, you’d have had some legitimate doubts about that too.
by fleerdon on Jul 9, 2009 11:22 PM EDT up reply actions
Oh, okay … while you’re at it …
Draft strategy criticism is logic-based argument that sounds nice but is based on absolutely no data. Anytime anyone has ever actually plugged in any data, the idea of drafting more "high-ceiling" players falls apart completely. It is built largely on a major misconception as to the realistic yield of any one, individual draft pick.
So, while not wishing to insult anyone, the fact is that this "high-ceiling" talk belongs in the same bin with RBI and batting average. It’s a fun conversation, I guess, for some, but it’s a conversation had by people who don’t understand the basic arithmetic of the draft.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
I actually thought of that comment, but I decided it wasn’t long enough, or written-by-me enough.
by fleerdon on Jul 9, 2009 11:30 PM EDT up reply actions
Coincidentally, those are roughly the same critiques I have of the Harry Potter books.
by fleerdon on Jul 9, 2009 11:32 PM EDT up reply actions
Ah, I’ve apparently hit a nerve.
You all make excellent points.
I don’t know what the problem is (budget, process, scouting) but this team has serious problems with the Rule 4 … and that’s the ONLY way this team can succeed.
If it’s budget that’s holding them back … and essentially what you’re saying is we need to hold out enough money to possibly sign all 50 picks, then perhaps Shapiro and company need better arguments for sinking more into the draft.
Also, using last year’s picks as an example is a bit of a aberration for me, as the team was fat and happy from a post-season run the year before, and even used a little leftover Paul Byrd cash to draft over slot a few times.
That’s the ONLY time in recent memory they’ve done that.
As for the general argument that high schoolers aren’t necessarily riskier than college players … I don’t entirely buy it.
The pool of talent you’re competing against, to me, is slightly less watered down in college compared to high school, and that alone reduces some of the risk.
Also, high school players can still grow in those couple of years between senior year and junior in college … in some cases guys grow out of positions, but their bats don’t necessarily follow … or pitchers suddenly pick up a few miles on their fastball with a few inches of height.
No, I don’t have numbers or figures to back it up … or refute it … it’s just something I feel to be true having played at both levels.
As for the “ceilings” of the talent we have drafted … sure we’ve been TOLD they were all high-ceiling .. but were they really?
No team is ever going to say their top pick wasn’t high ceiling.
I had a chance to interview Mike Aubrey when he first arrived with the Aeros … before injuries “robbed” him of his skills …
I observed a 22-year-old with a double chin, who was considerably shorter than his listed height.
I walked back to my co-workers that day and said “if he’s our top hitting prospect, we’re in BIG trouble.”
I’ve gone on too long … and I’m sure this will cause people smarter than me to have smoke coming out of their ears, but I just don’t buy the “risk” argument completely.
See … all this … and I never once brought up Tim Lincecum.
by FallsTribeFan on Jul 9, 2009 11:44 PM EDT up reply actions
Also, using last year’s picks as an example is a bit of a aberration for me, as the team was fat and happy from a post-season run the year before, and even used a little leftover Paul Byrd cash to draft over slot a few times. That’s the ONLY time in recent memory they’ve done that.
Also, it was the first year Brad Grant ran the draft. I do puzzle over people acting like the Indians have been trotting out the same strategy year after year, and especially last year, with a new guy pulling the levers. Unless you’re just saying the scouts suck, which is possible, I guess.
perhaps Shapiro and company need better arguments for sinking more into the draft
Again, how do we know they haven’t made them? Your argument presumes that there’s a lot of this prep talent out there that we’re missing, and I’m unconvinced of that. In any event, you clearly understand that the draft is a moving target. Some years, it’s just dumb to spend too much on Rule 4. You can’t spend $75,000 on a Hyundai and reasonably expect to get a BMW out of it.
I walked back to my co-workers that day and said "if he’s our top hitting prospect, we’re in BIG trouble."
You’ll note I very specifically don’t try to defend the ACTUAL CHOICES that the Indians made. I don’t even defend their strategy as they apply it; I’m just saying, it’s not willfully negligent. I submit to you could be absolutely right about Mike Aubrey, but that’s a scouting problem, not a preference-for-drafting-college-players problem.
by fleerdon on Jul 10, 2009 12:07 AM EDT up reply actions
I wonder if its the scouting as well. But here’s the thing, I’d bet that the scouts have instructions to look for certain types of players, which leads me back to square one.
by world dictator on Jul 10, 2009 9:21 AM EDT up reply actions
Might be taking it too far. Even if they were as close-minded about prep players as you suggest, they’d still want the best information about those players, including how they’ve evolved since high school.
Brad Grant specifically pointed out that they’d been scouting Chisenhall and White since high school. Shoot, he said that about Chen-Chang Lee.
by fleerdon on Jul 10, 2009 9:36 AM EDT up reply actions
Is it really taking it too far? I would imagine that every team spends the majority of their scouting resources looking at certain types of players and/or players with certain skills. If you don’t have infinite money to spend on the amatuer draft it only makes sense that you would target your resources strategically.
I mean, I don’t doubt that the scouting department looks at other types of players but I’d bet its not the primacy of their focus.
by world dictator on Jul 10, 2009 12:43 PM EDT up reply actions
The draft remains a gray area for me … I’ve said this before.
Is it the process … focusing on the wrong players?
Is it the scouts … seeing things that aren’t there?
Is it the money … Dolan putting a tight lid on the bonuses?
Is it a combo of all 3 … which in my mind would be the perfect storm of failure.
by FallsTribeFan on Jul 10, 2009 11:34 AM EDT up reply actions
I’m open to arguments backing points two and three, or at least I have nothing with which to refute them. I don’t really see the evidence behind point one, and I think that’s all I’ve really been trying to say. There are organizations who center their efforts on prep players who have netted mixed or poor results from the draft — wasn’t that part of Houston’s problem for a long time? — so obviously there are some other factors in play.
I think the Indians are right to figure that Rule 4 is a limited tool when it comes to getting stars, particularly if they’re not picking in the top ten overall. But they’re still going to need role-players. We may be disappointed in how the organization has handled Francisco or Garko, and we may feel that way in the future about guys like Brown or Giminez, but they do serve a purpose, if only for a short period of time, and you’ve got to get them from somewhere.
I will say the Grant drafts seem to focus on guys with fewer tools, but greater overall capabilities — strike-throwing, stuff, or power, footspeed, plate discipline. Possibly the new math says that the higher-ceiling, two-tool player has a greater likelihood of creating value (in development or trade) than the lower-ceiling guy with a more balanced skill-set. But I’m flying blind with that suggestion.
by fleerdon on Jul 13, 2009 10:51 AM EDT up reply actions
“High ceiling” certainly has become a cliche (like “electric stuff”), but like most cliches it has a grain of truth in it. If you draft a player that is physically smaller than most of his cohorts but succeeds because of superior skills at that level, the stats are with you, but another set of data (avg size of major leaguers) are against you.
Just an example. There are other empirical factors that have to do with tools. Where is this guy going to play in a ML lineup? Does he have the tools to stick at the position he had success in at a lower level? Trevor Crowe and John Drennen were first round picks where you acknowledged their superiority and polish at their level but had to scratch your head and ask where is he going to play in the major leagues?
Hard data is not limited to baseball stats when drafting a player.
Heyward signed for 1.7 million. Mills for 1.575 million.
The draft strategy critiques seem pretty weak to me. The idea that in order to improve their drafts, they should be more risky sounds specious.
The drafts do need to get better, I just don’t know how you go about doing that, other than drafting and signing better players.
I don’t want Shapiro to start drafting young “or high ceiling” players . I want Shapiro to stop shying away from them.
I agree with most of what you said, but its probably not a coincidence that a lot of our draft picks, particularly in the first round, fit into certain types of categories: “Polished” “College player” “Good College Stats”. I assume that every team has general traits they want out of an amatuer before they even breakdown film or look at stats. That’s where I think our problem is.
by world dictator on Jul 10, 2009 2:18 AM EDT up reply actions
You’ve said it better than I.
This is my point exactly.
by FallsTribeFan on Jul 10, 2009 7:40 AM EDT up reply actions
Why are we already writing off Mills? I’ve spent most of the year hoping that a fellow NAIA guy would get things together.
I become an expert simply by doing something.
Beau Mills is starting to look a lot like Mike Jacobs.
It’s really tough for a bad defensive first baseman with mediocre on-base skills to become a valuable contributor, and it’s especially disappointing to not see the power playing this year.
I wouldn’t write him off after one bad half, but I wasn’t an especially big fan of his prior to the year. His performance record is rather uninspiring.
Personally, I’m a Big Ten and a DIII guy so I got nothing for the NAIA.
The draft-day report on Mills was that the power was real, but his OBP would always be AVG-dependent; I think his plate discipline would be a function of pitchers’ fear more than his eye. Ideally, he’s an improved version of Ryan Garko. But it’s hard to improve on the Garko Model if you can’t replicate Garko’s contact skills.
by fleerdon on Jul 11, 2009 1:19 PM EDT up reply actions
Comparing Beau Mills to Garko makes me physically ill.
I become an expert simply by doing something.
Yea, I just recovered from reading that. It took a day.
by Roger Dorn on Jul 12, 2009 6:28 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Well, they’re both first basemen whose offense is a function of contact hitting. Mills is more powerful and left-handed and is supposed to have a little footspeed and some defensive range (relatively speaking). But none of that would matter if he can’t get the bat on the ball, yeah?
by fleerdon on Jul 13, 2009 10:25 AM EDT up reply actions
I’m not writing of Mills. I was high on Mills coming into this season and thought he’d have a real breakout. If he hasn’t turned things around by July 1st next year, then I’ll be more inclined to write him off. He’s had a setback certainly, but I don’t think his troubles are insurmountable.
Insurmountable, no. But certain prospects’ prospects rest entirely on the notion that he simply has that knack for putting the bat on the ball and making good contact — that knack which is so rare that many of the world’s greatest athletes couldn’t hit their weight against Double-A pitching. Mills is one of those guys, perhaps not to the same extent as Crowe, but not far off. When guys like that aren’t hitting, they just look awful, because if they can’t make contact, there’s really nothing there. Kind of the opposite of Gootz.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
Casey Kelly was picked by the Red Sox right after Chisenhall. Both fall somewhere in “the next 25”. Both were drafted as SS, but Casey’s spent this year pitching. Allegedly he’ll return to the diamond when he’s maxed out his innings.
It’s an interesting battle those two are having (if only in my mind).
Not really … BA had Santana as the Tribe’s #1 prospect in the pre-season … with LaPorta right behind him.
by FallsTribeFan on Jul 9, 2009 7:48 PM EDT up reply actions
Speaking of polished college players who may not profile well for a ML position, Jason Kipnis, our second pick this year, just signed.
I actually like him a little better than the Crowe and Drennen picks, which are the comp being used. I think he’s a better all around hitter and might actually work as a left fielder.
Good news … we’ve now signed all 19 picks from rounds 2 through 20.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
I think this goes to the discussion above.
Is it good news? (Well, of course it is, because you’d rather see players signed over not signed.)
But is it because these were the best guys available … or is it because these were the best guys available for the money the team could afford …
by FallsTribeFan on Jul 10, 2009 3:30 PM EDT up reply actions
The AL Central list:
7. Carlos Santana, c, Indians
22. Matt LaPorta, 1b/of, Indians
That’s right … nobody else from the AL Central makes the Top 25.
The next 25:
Indians: Lonnie Chisenhall, 3b; Nick Weglarz, of
Royals: Mike Moustakas, 3b; Eric Hosmer, 1b
Twins: Aaron Hicks, of; Ben Revere, of
No Tigers or White Sox prospects in the Top 50.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
Yeah the Tigers pretty much traded away their best prospects in a “win now” mode, which as far as this year is going looks to be working, but they are going to crash in the next few years because of the bareness of their system. I’d say Beckham would have been in the top 50 if he wasn’t called up already, but yeah not much there for Chicago either.
And Porcello, not that that undermines Jay’s point.
by fleerdon on Jul 11, 2009 2:06 PM EDT up reply actions
I like Chiz and all but I find it pretty frustrating that the White Sox already have a 2008 Draft Pick in the majors and contributing.
Contributing a K/9 of 5. I’m not ripping on Porcello, but I don’t see this lasting all season successfully. There’s a reason 19-year-olds don’t start for a major-league club very often.
by fleerdon on Jul 11, 2009 2:55 PM EDT up reply actions
Well, we could call up Chisenhall and House; there’s an outside chance they’d do decent Beckham and Porcello impressions. But what would that prove?
by fleerdon on Jul 11, 2009 4:41 PM EDT up reply actions
And he’s got a GB% 56.4%. And he’s only walking 3.2 BB/G. He’s RA is 4.66 and his xFIP 4.38.
He’s created 32 pitching runs, that’ would make him second on our team. It was bold, and so far, very smart move putting Porcello in the rotation.
I don’t contest that he’s done well, or that the Tigers needed to start him. I just don’t see his relative success lasting the whole season.
by fleerdon on Jul 11, 2009 7:55 PM EDT up reply actions
After Bonderman flamed out, and the Tigers had traded away a lot of talent, they looked amazingly barren in the starting rotation. No way they could compete with that rotation.
Yet they’ve managed to find two pitchers—Jackson and Galarraga—out of nowhere. Jackson (one of two Tigers to have been born in Germany) was a promising pitcher for the Dodgers, but still.
And where did they get the hard-throwing guys in the bullpen?
I’d lay some money on Galarraga coming apart in the second half.
by fleerdon on Jul 12, 2009 11:56 AM EDT up reply actions
This isn’t really exactly the same thought but I was listening to the futures game yesterday and they were slobbering about Brian Matusz. I was thinking, that’s really who Jeremy Sowers should have been for us.
by NickFantana on Jul 13, 2009 10:19 AM EDT up reply actions
I mean, people were slobbering over Sowers in 2005 and 2006.
Though I look right at home, I still feel like an exile
by Manhattan Tribe Fan on Jul 13, 2009 3:46 PM EDT up reply actions
This doesn’t make me feel as good as it should, in large part, because the rest of the central teams’ have good, strong foundations in their rotation for 2010 and beyond.
Tigers: Verlander, under control for two more years; Jackson, under control for two more years; and Porcello, for five more years.
White Sox: Buehrle, under contract for two more years; Floyd, under contract until 2013; Danks, under control for three more years.
Twins: Baker, under contract until 2013; Slowey, under control for four more years; and Blackburn, under control for four more years.
I’m curious to see how hard the Tigers will ride Jackson and Porcello this season. They’re both on pace for personal records in innings pitched, by a significant margin.
by fleerdon on Jul 12, 2009 11:53 AM EDT up reply actions
Jackson is a horse, and has put up close to 400 innings the last two years I believe. Porcello on the other hand, they’ll have to very careful with.
161 in 2007 and 183 last year. He’s on pace for over 215 this year but that is assuming he continues to pitch as well as he has thus far. His innings this year have also likely been pitched under considerably less stress than he pitched under in the previous two years due to his newfound ability to limit runners. In short, the innings spike isn’t quite alarming as it seems.
I become an expert simply by doing something.
He threw right around 3000 pitches the last two seasons and is now on pace for 3400+. Everyone can interpret that however they want.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
Is there a resource where you can track down that kind of historical pitch count number, or did you have to rough that out yourself? I’d be interested to know that kind of stuff if it can be found easily, but if there’s work for me involved, forget it.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
Featured Stories
FanShots
Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.
Recent FanShots
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- Photo: Padres fan regrets letting mother capture moment with Trevor Hoffman
- Marlins agree to unretire No. 5 for Logan Morrison, who will honor his father’s favorite player
- Weatherman Derek Holland does Dallas TV
- Ask Alex: Will Julio Teheran or Matt Moore win rookie of the year?
- Ku Klux Klan, umpires and bowling: Why the minor leagues tossed out Jim Evans academy
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
