01-05-2007, 10:22 AM
Five Tool Fool
Join Date: Nov 2006
Re: College vs High School ?
Originally Posted by jmcclain19
There should be no draft absolutes.
Take a look at some current/recent Reds.
Drafting only college players means that the Reds would have passed over
Ken Griffey Jr
The only data that has shown anything towards what you should pick, is that High School Pitchers, in the first few rounds (The big money rounds), tend to be a high risk proposition. But there are plenty that have bucked the trend, as well and countless hundreds late round HS arms that have had fine pitching careers.
Otherwise, it all depends on the player, the development system and many times, just simple luck.
You need to have an organizational philosophy - in my mind, and the will to stick with it.
Take two extremes.
The A's for example - the "moneyball" style somehow turned into meaning "college only" drafts, but in 2005 picked four High School arms in the first five rounds. Showing that the A's style of management has nothing to do with simply drafting college players and letting them grow, but simply to root out any market inequalities and exploit them. Everyone was tilting towards College arms, so they zagged, and grabbed HS players. Perhaps their college heavy strategy allowed them to take a few fliers on players because their high minors was so loaded in talent? Eric Chavez, probably one of the best products to come out of their system in recent years, was a HS bat. People always seem to get that confused that moneyball=college only.
The Braves - on the other hand, draft HS players and pitchers almost exclusively, mostly out of the southeast. If you want to have a good chuckle at that philosophy in action, look at the last three drafts and just see how many HS & JC guys from the Southeast they picked. Their thoughts have almost always been - they would rather take a raw 18 year old with talent and mold them in the Braves mold, than someone with 2-4 years of bad habits. A la Jeff Francouer - Mr. Georgia HS Sports All World & his counterparts. And that has worked for quite a while now, so they stick with it.
Transfer that to the Reds - when Homer officially becomes a Red - and if that happens around June - you will no doubt hear blow hards talking about how HS arms are the way to go because of Homer - say nothing of the fact that his development has been more dumb luck than Reds developmental skill. The Reds have no organizational plan, more like "throw it against the wall to see if it sticks". Hasn't worked for three GMs straight now, doubtful it will change in the future.
This is an absolute great post. I think you really nail an issue that is so central to the Reds ability to be a chronic playoff contender. Player development is a high risk endeavor by its very nature so a clear advantage can be gained by managing this risk effectively. A cohesive plan for player development intuitively seems like a necesary first step.