2004 Draft thread

[MWM]

The new assistant GM for the A's was interviewed during the game last night, and he reiterated Oakland's SOP to draft college pitchers. He also said the former Oakland execs (Ricciardi, DePodesta) were likely to do the same. If enough GMs ascribe to this mindset, HS pitchers should begin to "slide" down the draft board, and be available to GMs who are willing to take the risk

I'm not saying it's right, but it could have something to do with Reynolds' about-face in the 2004 draft. (As Yogi Berra would say) "when you come to the BPA 'fork' in the road, take it"

Don't look now, but you just described the "Moneyball" approach you loathe so much.

[M2]

The new assistant GM for the A's was interviewed during the game last night, and he reiterated Oakland's SOP to draft college pitchers. He also said the former Oakland execs (Ricciardi, DePodesta) were likely to do the same. If enough GMs ascribe to this mindset, HS pitchers should begin to "slide" down the draft board, and be available to GMs who are willing to take the risk

I'm not saying it's right, but it could have something to do with Reynolds' about-face in the 2004 draft. (As Yogi Berra would say) "when you come to the BPA 'fork' in the road, take it"

Except the Reds made four of their top five pitching selections HS arms. Sure looks like the prioritized HS pitchers.

[lollipopcurve]

Read BA's Jim Callis' just-posted article about the shuffling at the top of the first round. Several mentions of teams considering/wanting Homer, including the Tigers at #2. I think that's pretty good evidence (and we are considering scuttlebutt a form of evidence, right?) that we can be excited about having him in the organization.

Saw somewhere else (or maybe it was the same article) that somebody said there was a "major dropoff" in talent after about the first 8 players. I'm sure Homer is in the first 8. makes me wonder who M2/MWM saw after that top 8 who they'd have rather the Reds chose.

Climbin' on the Bailey bandwagon...

[MWM]

What I find most interesting of all about this entire discussion is that folks play the armchair QB as if they are more qualified than the one's making the decisions

OK, I'm back in. I admit it, I can't resist, and this is WAY better than doing work (especially useless Sarbanes-Oxley BS :mhcky21: ).

I'll ask you this, what fun is it to be a fan if you can never form your own opinions on moves made by the club? Because your logic dictates that anyone who questions a move made by the decision makers is pretending to be more qualified. Yes, that's the logic your argument follows. Have you ever questioned an in-game move made by Miley or even Boone? If so, what makes you more qualified than them? Sorry, but that's no fun to me.

Why are you so bothered that folks like me don't like the Reynolds/O'Brien approach to the draft? You admitted yourself that there's merits to the philosophy I subscribe to, then you ridicule for me for actually subscribing to it because I'm not an "expert." Seriously, how can you admit someting has merits and then be criticial of those who actually buy into those merits? Because I know I've admitted I see the other side of the argument, so I can't be accused not recognizing the opposing viewpoint. But there's a lot of opposing viewpoints I understand, but that doesn't mean I have to agree. THAT'S THE ONLY THING I'VE DONE HERE - disagree with a philosophy employed by those in charge of the draft for the Reds. Do I have to have a job in baseball to be able to do this?

And you're right, when faced with opposing viewpoints and one of those viewpoints has an overwhelming track record of failure, then I'm likely to want to try the other direction. If actually using the information available to form an opinion (actuarial tables as you call them) makes me a robot, then I'm a robot. Personally, I don't think using readily available concrete information makes me a robot, but so be it if that's what you believe.

but then when you question their opinion, they distance themselves from being an expert.

Again, I'll readily admit I'm no expert. Does that mean I can't have an opinion? Do I have to claim to be an expert to be able to disagree with something the club does? I played baseball my entire life, and following baseball is more than a mere hobby. I read a lot of baseball publications and I'm familiar with the history of the draft. Is that not enough to make me qualified to form an opinion? What do you do when two "experts" have differing opinions? Does the world come crashing down? Afterall, if they're "experts", they must be right. So how is it possible for two "experts" to have completely opposite viewpoints?

[chicoruiz]

OK, this is weird...I act as GM of the 2004 Reds in an Out Of The Park sim league. We had our draft two weeks ago, and I drafted a HS pitcher in round 1, a college OF in round 2, and a college catcher in round 3.

So I guess I'm not entitled to complain about O'B...

[Red Leader]

What do you do when two "experts" have differing opinions? Does the world come crashing down? Afterall, if they're "experts", they must be right. So how is it possible for two "experts" to have completely opposite viewpoints?

The sky is falling, the sky is falling!



:MandJ: :MandJ: :MandJ:


Oh, and just to share my "non expert" opinion. This draft SUCKS so far for the Reds. Far worse than last year. Granted, most of the time, it takes 2-3 years to evaluate how you've done in a draft to see how these kids are developing. With this draft we'll be lucky to even be able to evaluate them in 2-3 years as a majority of them will probably still be in high A ball....we're loading up for 2010!!! Nice job, DanO.

[Aronchis]

Let me guess, you didn't see the mostly College bats taken

The 2003 draft did little for me, as most of the previous Bowden drafts did. Lets see how we look in 2 years.

[M2]

Read BA's Jim Callis' just-posted article about the shuffling at the top of the first round. Several mentions of teams considering/wanting Homer, including the Tigers at #2. I think that's pretty good evidence (and we are considering scuttlebutt a form of evidence, right?) that we can be excited about having him in the organization.

Saw somewhere else (or maybe it was the same article) that somebody said there was a "major dropoff" in talent after about the first 8 players. I'm sure Homer is in the first 8. makes me wonder who M2/MWM saw after that top 8 who they'd have rather the Reds chose.

Climbin' on the Bailey bandwagon...

I believe I've been fairly vocal about the players I'd have preferred, but just to run it over with a tank, I'd have taken any of the five guys selected immediately after Bailey. IMO, they blew it and blew it hard by skipping over a middle IF who could anchor the team for a long, long time.

The 2003 draft did little for me, as most of the previous Bowden drafts did. Lets see how we look in 2 years.

You could just look at the 2003 draft right now and get some pretty solid evidence that it should have done something for you at the time.

1. Ryan Wagner - First player from the draft to the majors.
2. Thom Pauly - Putting up good power pitcher numbers in High A, looks like he's starting to master the circuit.
3. Jose Ronda - Dynamite start in the GCL last season, starts playing soon in Billings.
4. Kenny Lewis - Same as Ronda.
6. Richie Gardner - One of the top pitchers in the Carolina League.
9. Ben Himes - Showing power in Dayton, though slowed by injury.
16. Chris Dickerson - Enjoying a solid season in Dayton.

Add in a draft-and-follow signing like Calvin Medlock and the 2003 class is off to a fine start.

[traderumor]

MWM,

No one is trying to suck your fun out of being a fan. But it is funny to watch someone go on and on about how bad a pick this was but then say "I'm not an expert" in the same breath. It isn't about no armchair QBing allowed here, but at some point it is healthy to admit that perhaps, perhaps, the folks that have done a little (ok a lot) more legwork than reading publications and done went and made a draft pick that didn't fit inside some neat little "moneyball pick" box (which just like in high school, when all the non-conformists dressed alike ) might find an exception to a rule. Or they may be the same devil we just got rid of.

But then we have no choice but to see how these doomsday draftpicks work out. Hopefully, even though they have our resident experts scratching their collective heads (and honestly, I do consider someone like M2 a true expert, honestly I wish sometimes he had someone's ear in the FO), some of these picks will work out. Maybe that's a defense mechanism to not let the Reds ruin my day on a daily basis, but I can live with letting circumstances beyond my control not get my panties in a bunch.

[gm]

Don't look now, but you just described the "Moneyball" approach you loathe so much.

I've been in and out of the Moneyball/sabr "hopper" over the past 4 years, and it's not that I "loathe" it, it's just that I find numerical evaluation of an activity that involves so many immeasurable intangibles to be incomplete

(That is to say, if your team can't execute the fundamentals, it doesn't matter how good their stats are. They're still gonna lose the crucial playoff series)

My comment "I'm not saying it's right" in the above post wasn't meant to say that I believe what the Red's FO did in selecting HS pitchers was necessarily wrong, either. My point was that now there are at least 3 actual Sabr/Moneyball GMs running real ML ballclubs out there, and since they aren't likely to select any HS pitchers in the first round (and few in later rounds) then quality HS pitchers will be available to select further down the board than in year's past. So "the best player available" could be a higher-than-expected rated HS pitcher, which might be why Reynolds/O'Brien went in that direction, yesterday. There's nothing earth-shattering about my comments; don't read into them any further. Only time will tell if the Red's 2004 draft decisions were wise or foolhardy.

[gm]

...they blew it and blew it hard by skipping over a middle IF who could anchor the team for a long, long time.

3. Jose Ronda - Dynamite start in the GCL last season, starts playing soon in Billings.

Perhaps the Red's FO felt they have their impact MIF, already? Sure, they could've easily developed both Ronda and Nelson and decided who they liked best, later (the old Larkin/Stillwell debate) but MIF doesn't seem to be the direction where they felt they needed an impact player (which shouldn't surprise anyone, considering all the comments from the last 9 months about the team needing to improve pitching depth in the farm system)

I know you're looking for "the next Larkin" but evidently the Red's FO felt that Nelson wasn't that guy. Maybe Ronda will succeed where Reese, Dawkins, Olmedo and Lopez have failed, so far. If Nelson turns into Nomar/Jeter in a few years (and Bailey doesn't develope into a quality ML starting pitcher) you can always repost your displeasure

[lollipopcurve]

So, M2, you'd have taken a HS catcher over Bailey?
I believe the success rate of HS catchers taken in the first round is the lowest of any position, including HS pitchers. But correct me if I'm wrong.

[knuckler]

My point was that now there are at least 3 actual Sabr/Moneyball GMs running real ML ballclubs out there, and since they aren't likely to select any HS pitchers in the first round (and few in later rounds) then quality HS pitchers will be available to select further down the board than in year's past. So "the best player available" could be a higher-than-expected rated HS pitcher, which might be why Reynolds/O'Brien went in that direction, yesterday.

In the same vein, the general aversion to high school pitchers means better pickings for those willing to accept the risk.

One interpretation of Moneyball is that a smart organization seeks undervalued talent and exploits it. In the past that meant high OBP hitters, college pitchers, or short pitchers, for example. As the industry picks up on the value of these commodities (my apologies to any players I've dehumanized by referring to them as commodities) the market bids them up and bids down the alternative, be it free-swinging contact hitters or high school pitchers. Like a contrarian stock trader, there is value to be found in bucking the conventional wisdom, if you're smart enough to pick the cherries. :idea:

Did I get enough cliches in there? :RedinDC:

[Bill]

I've been advocating for several weeks that the Reds consider some high schoolers in rounds 3-5 since the current fad is college guys and that would allow some talented guys to slide. Yet that approach would be put into effect after round 1. Selecting a HS pitcher 7th overall does not take advantage.

They also completely ignored the strength of this draft.

[Red Leader]

They also completely ignored the strength of this draft.

That is exactly the way I feel and the main reason that I'm upset with the draft so far.