2006 Redzone mock Draftee's- 1(st) Daniel Bard(redsox), 1(st sup)( Jordan Walden (Angels), 2(nd) rd.- Zach Britton(Orioles), 3(rd) Blair Erickson(Cardinals), 3(rd) Tim Norton( Yankees),(cuz its a Tim Hortons thing
Pain heals. Chicks dig scars. Glory... lasts forever.
Simple question...at what level would you expect a 2006 draft pick to be at in 2007, regardless of their age or previous level of competition (HS vs college)? How many players go from draft pick to some high level in way less than one full season? I know there are one off examples of players who jumped to the majors very quickly, but are we looking for that one in a million superstar, or the remaining 24 guys to fill out the squad?
Baseball, it is said, is only a game. True. And the Grand Canyon is only a hole in Arizona. Not all holes, or games, are created equal. ~George Will
How long are people going to keep giving Krivsky a free pass on the rotation? The rotation could easily have been Arroyo, Harang, Bailey, Lincecum, and Germano by the end of this July. And we'd still have Zach Ward, plus the money wasted on Cormier and the money spent on Lohse. And by the way, we won't know how to evaluate K's 2006 draft for another year anyway. If at the end of this season, Turner, Valaika, and Stubbs are putting up good numbers at Sarasota, then we'll know we've got something. I happen to think they will but it's still too early to know anything realistic about how those guys will develop. Also, it's unfair to O'Brien to link him up just with Bailey and Bruce. Take a look at what he did with an 11th round pick--Carlos Fisher is developing into a big time pitching prospect.
Nobody is down grading what O Brien did, I was a (one of the few) huge supporters of what he did in his tenure. Basically I was just looking back on last year since the draft was coming up. I like to call it as I see it and you can go back and search my comments on O Brien. The free pass on Krivsky is what he has earned as far as drafting last year goes. Lincecum yeah has jumped out the gate on fire, but Krivsky's draft was pretty damn good, I call them as I see them.
I see no reason as yet to call Krivsky's 2006 draft good. His highest picks are having success at Low A ball. That's good, but they were all major college players and are not doing any more than one would expect from them. I actually like his draft, though I'd have liked it a lot more if the first pick had been Lincecum. But it's way too early to evaluate it properly.
I'll just give a few bullet-point thoughts:O Brien had some pretty good drafts (Bailey, Bruce) Krivsky clearly raised the bar though. Just looking at Dayton stats and just about every draft pick on that team is clearly a legit hitting prospect even down to kids like Phipps and Heisley. Then the top 4 pitching prospects have unreal WHIPs.
Jordan Smith 0.95
Sean Watson 0.98
Rafael Gonzalez 1.11
Travis Webb 0.99
1) If Bailey and Bruce equated to "pretty good" drafts, who is even close to these two from the '06 draft?
2) Rafael Gonzalez was drafted in 2004 by Dan O'Brien.
3) I guess my major point from this thread is that judging college players in low A ball cannot "raise the bar" from drafts which have yielded Bruce and Bailey. It makes no logical sense.
Now to answer your question. Where do I expect a 2006 draft pick to be right now, regardless of age or level of competition? That depends on a few things. It HAS to be with regard to their age. It also has to be with regard to their draft position. A first-round college pick should be more advanced than a 7th round high school pick, no? Where they should be is on a case by case basis. Maybe they should be in Low A...that's fine. But we shouldn't be deeming the '06 draft a winner because of their success there.
Listen...I think these guys are having good season so far. But, IMO, they should be having some success for them to currently have some worth. If they were getting shelled in Low A, I'd be worried. Low A isn't exactly cream of the crop.
Here's a real life example of what I am trying to say.
2nd round picks from 2006:
21 year old pitcher in Low A (will be 22 in July '07): 3-1 with a 2.09 ERA. 56-5 K/BB ratio. .237 BAA, 0.98 WHIP.
19 year old pitcher in Low A (won't be 20 until February '08): 5-3 with a 2.06 ERA. 62-7 K/BB ratio. .237 BAA, 1.01 WHIP.
Which season has been more impressive so far? All things being equal (I'm not sure about lineups each have faced and league/ballpark effects), the 19 year old is having a more impressive season because of his age. The 21 year old is obviously Sean Watson and the 19 year old is Brett Anderson for Arizona. Anderson is someone people were predicting to go early on in the draft and he dropped into the 2nd round. I know I was dying for Cincy to pick him. He's 3 years behind Watson and is having virtually the same season. Natural progression would lead anyone to believe that Anderson should improve and, in 3 years, be better than what he is now. But as we know, nothing is a guarantee in this game.
That's my thought process. Take it for what it's worth.
Are we grading the drafting ability of Krivsky or the outcome of the 2006 draft? These are two very distinct questions. The outcome of the 2004 draft is that Homer Bailey has become one of the top pitching prospects in baseball. The strategy of drafting Bailey that high in the first round is still poor because history has shown that high school pitchers are nearly impossible to accurately predict.
If we are grading Krivsky's drafting last year, it is suspect. Drafting a project like Stubbs in the first round when your team needs contributors sooner rather than later is foolish. Watson and Valaika are off to very good starts on their pro careers, however they appeared to have been overdrafted at the time. It is too early in Krivsky's career to make any kind of call on whether he was lucky in drafting them or does he have a knack for identifying talent that others have overlooked.
By the way, Lincecum is beating Roy Oswalt tonight. That's what you call "raising the bar" in drafting.
I think its a huge mistake to call anything "Krivsky's" draft or "O'Brien's" draft.
I have a long time friend & neighbor who is currently an MLB scouting director. He's told me on plenty of occasions the GM's role in the draft is extremely limited - and he has nearly total autonomy - and he's been thru 2 GMs. The current GM is even less into the draft than the prior - last year my friend pretty much told him he wanted player X unless he was picked before, then he wanted player Y. The GM pretty much said sure thing whatever you want to do. And that player is having a monster season so far. I'm sure all over baseball there are different levels of involvement, but even draft connoisseur Billy Beane still lets his guys make the decisions.
So thank or blame Terry Reynolds or Chris Buckley.
Good point. Though Terry Renyolds was against drafting HS pitchers in the first round in his Dodger days. Considering the time it took the Reds to draft in 2004, I wonder who really made that final call. I remember waiting for the pick, it was like getting NFLish in its delay lol.
I think it was pretty clear from Buckley's quotes, he was pushing for Stubbs.
"[He] as all the tools you look for, plays at a top-flight program," Reds scouting director Chris Buckley said from Great American Ball Park in Cincinnati. "We're thrilled to have him. For me, he was the best athlete in the draft, so we're excited to have him with the eighth pick."
"He's a top-flight center fielder, he's got all the skills," general manager Wayne Krivsky said. "We're just real pleased to get him. I trusted Chris and his staff to do the right thing, and pick the best player in each round."