BA: Pioneer League Top 20 (3 REDS)

[camisadelgolf]

Oh I know where Mesoraco rated in mid-June. Once again, we're talking about an industry that doesn't understand risk. When you're in that kind of industry, then you tend to do a lot of screwy things. If the industry did understand risk, then Mesoraco would have been a much lower picks, thus the reach part.

The Reds knew who they wanted, and they were pretty sure he wouldn't've been around if they waited until their next pick. Personally, I'm very happy with the Reds first choices from the 2007 draft.

[M2]

The Reds knew who they wanted, and they were pretty sure he wouldn't've been around if they waited until their next pick.

I'm sure he wouldn't have been around given the risk oblivious nature of the business.

But, to paraphrase a certain GM in Oakland, just because no one else bothers to think about these things doesn't mean you shouldn't.

[camisadelgolf]

I'm sure he wouldn't have been around given the risk oblivious nature of the business.

But, to paraphrase a certain GM in Oakland, just because no one else bothers to think about these things doesn't mean you shouldn't.

Actually, I think it was the Reds' knowledge of the business that caused them to draft Mesoraco so highly. When Wayne Krivsky's are appropriately regarded as doing a poor job of drafting, that's when I'll start to criticize them.

[M2]

Actually, I think it was the Reds' knowledge of the business that caused them to draft Mesoraco so highly. When Wayne Krivsky's are appropriately regarded as doing a poor job of drafting, that's when I'll start to criticize them.

So the way to beat the risk oblivious is by being more risk oblivious?

[dougdirt]

So the way to beat the risk oblivious is by being more risk oblivious?

The way to beat the risk is to take the best player available that you can sign (which takes Porcello off the board).

Catchers, of any kind, are the riskiest picks you can make in the draft.... but I don't advocate passing up on a larger talent simply because he plays catcher and they historically haven't panned out.

[M2]

The way to beat the risk is to take the best player available that you can sign (which takes Porcello off the board).

Catchers, of any kind, are the riskiest picks you can make in the draft.... but I don't advocate passing up on a larger talent simply because he plays catcher and they historically haven't panned out.

So don't learn from history. You won't find me getting behind that notion.

As for when to take a catcher, IMO the main question to ask is where would we be drafting this guy if he were an OF. I'd be willing to reach a bit more since he plays behind the plate, but not overly much. Joe Mauer was still a top 10 pick in the OF (possibly still a #1). Mesoraco would have been borderline to get taken high enough to keep him out of college.

[dougdirt]

So don't learn from history. You won't find me getting behind that notion.

As for when to take a catcher, IMO the main question to ask is where would we be drafting this guy if he were an OF. I'd be willing to reach a bit more since he plays behind the plate, but not overly much. Joe Mauer was still a top 10 pick in the OF (possibly still a #1). Mesoraco would have been borderline to get taken high enough to keep him out of college.

Taking the best player available is not learning from history? I don't care that the kid was a catcher or if he were a right fielder.... if the Reds had him #1 on their board, then thats who I wanted them to take.

[M2]

Taking the best player available is not learning from history? I don't care that the kid was a catcher or if he were a right fielder.... if the Reds had him #1 on their board, then thats who I wanted them to take.

He shouldn't have been #1 on the board. They overvalued him because of his position. That's the point. Taking the best available only means something if you can actually identify best available.

I'll leave the voodoo of whether he'll turn out to be the best available five years from now, though I can pretty much assure you other later picks will have turned out better. What I can tell you in concrete terms, is he's already dropped from best available a scant four months later.

I'll bring up Bruce again, he got selected at #12 and has consistently risen in value. That's the history I'd prefer to learn from.

[dougdirt]

He shouldn't have been #1 on the board. They overvalued him because of his position. That's the point. Taking the best available only means something if you can actually identify best available.

I'll leave the voodoo of whether he'll turn out to be the best available five years from now, though I can pretty much assure you other later picks will have turned out better. What I can tell you in concrete terms, is he's already dropped from best available a scant four months later.

And in 12 months he could look like the best guy on anyones board.

[M2]

And in 12 months he could look like the best guy on anyones board.

And there's proof that you can rationalize anything with a nebulous future.

If Mesoraco's still struggling next year I'm sure we'll hear about how everyone knew he'd be in for a difficult adjustment and that his struggles were always part of the plan, completely overlooking that the argument against him at the outset was that he was a raw, vastly inexperienced kid who was bound to struggle for an extended period of time, that all of that up front risk wasn't worth such an uncertain reward on a #15 pick.

[lollipopcurve]

And in 12 months he could look like the best guy on anyones board.

Would be nice, but it won't happen. I've butted heads with M2 a lot on draft stuff, but in this case I think he's right that the Reds reached a little with this pick, based on his position. Personally, I was OK with it, given that for once the Reds had multiple high picks, thanks to FA compensation. Meso-man was a relatively conservative investment, in my opinion, at 1.4 million, when you're talking about trying to fill a position that's dreadfully thin throughout baseball with a player who looks to have a high ceiling there. Had the Reds had their usual 1 pick per round, it may have made more sense to get a college catcher later on.

[camisadelgolf]

Would be nice, but it won't happen. I've butted heads with M2 a lot on draft stuff, but in this case I think he's right that the Reds reached a little with this pick, based on his position. Personally, I was OK with it, given that for once the Reds had multiple high picks, thanks to FA compensation. Meso-man was a relatively conservative investment, in my opinion, at 1.4 million, when you're talking about trying to fill a position that's dreadfully thin throughout baseball with a player who looks to have a high ceiling there. Had the Reds had their usual 1 pick per round, it may have made more sense to get a college catcher later on.

I think that's perfectly reasonable, but like I said, I'm in no position to criticize the two drafts Wayne Krivsky has had thus far. If it were Jim Bowden in his last years with the Reds, I'd criticize the pick to no end, however.

[M2]

Would be nice, but it won't happen. I've butted heads with M2 a lot on draft stuff, but in this case I think he's right that the Reds reached a little with this pick, based on his position. Personally, I was OK with it, given that for once the Reds had multiple high picks, thanks to FA compensation. Meso-man was a relatively conservative investment, in my opinion, at 1.4 million, when you're talking about trying to fill a position that's dreadfully thin throughout baseball with a player who looks to have a high ceiling there. Had the Reds had their usual 1 pick per round, it may have made more sense to get a college catcher later on.

Fair points about the investment amount and the extra picks.

For the record, I don't hate the Mesoraco pick. I wouldn't have made it as he'd have failed my "What if was an OF?" sniff test, but I can appreciate the urge to bring in a high reward catching prospect.