2010 MLB draft

[Mario-Rijo]

Maybe it's the scouting reports I am reading but I sure don't get some of the rankings here. Let me share some snippets of a few guys just to see what people think.

Updates:
12/20/2009 -- I've downgraded Colon's arm-strength and range projections. I still think he has a good chance to stick at short, but there's enough out there questioning his arm-strength that I feel my initial words in the report were a bit to aggressive. His range is downgraded until we see what happens with the leg recovery.

Link

Updates:
11/25/2009 -- WWBA World Championship, October 25, 2009 (Jupiter, Fla.) (Nick James in attendance) -- Machado showed clean actions and an above-average to plus arm in the field. Range could hamper ability to stick at SS. Solid command of strike zone at the plate.

Link

Based on those scouting reports it sounds like you have a future 2B (Colon) and a future 3B (Machado) and not 2 SS's, it's the range issue. Having said that I don't have a problem with them as draftable players they both seem to have good bats and we could use good players at any position. But like O'Conner they both lack the range (and/or arm) to stick at short and O'Conner has the better arm of the 3 so why in the world would anyone take them ahead of him? Just curious because I don't have all the facts here I suppose but when stacking them all up O'Conner seems to grade out ahead of them, or at least right there with them but his projections got him going much later.

Here is O'Conner's link.
Link

[13 in hall]

Hey Doug I was wondering will you be hosting the live draft chat again with Andy Siler? It was cool last year just stumbled upon it by accident. Nice to see your two objective analysis pick by bick. If you do post a link if possible because not all of us know all these prospects that shall be drafted. Thanks in advance. Also thanks to all for all the info and insight on all of these kids.

[Benihana]

Maybe it's the scouting reports I am reading but I sure don't get some of the rankings here. Let me share some snippets of a few guys just to see what people think.



Link



Link

Based on those scouting reports it sounds like you have a future 2B (Colon) and a future 3B (Machado) and not 2 SS's, it's the range issue. Having said that I don't have a problem with them as draftable players they both seem to have good bats and we could use good players at any position. But like O'Conner they both lack the range (and/or arm) to stick at short and O'Conner has the better arm of the 3 so why in the world would anyone take them ahead of him? Just curious because I don't have all the facts here I suppose but when stacking them all up O'Conner seems to grade out ahead of them, or at least right there with them but his projections got him going much later.

Here is O'Conner's link.
Link

There could be a scouting report here or there that could say just about anything about a kid. Most reports seem to think that both Colon and especially Machado will stick at SS. Additionally, their bats project better from my understanding. O'Connor reminds me more of a Brett Lawrie type, where most scouts aren't exactly sure where he projects on the diamond. When those types of guys come out of high school, they better be pretty close to a sure-thing with the stick if they are going to go in the top half of the first round. That said, I still think he is a good looking prospect, just not as good as Colon or Machado- and most scouts and projections seem to agree.

[lollipopcurve]

O'Connor reminds me more of a Brett Lawrie type

Lawrie's bat was elite. I don't think O'Connor grades near that high, does he?

[Benihana]

It's always a bad idea to draft for need rather than best available. You can always trade later. Worst case scenario, you can put the guy in LF and the defense would be sick!!

Choice can play left field too.

I thought that is the position that our current four best hitting prospects in the organization were all fighting over? You know, the one where all four guys (Alonso, Frazier, Francisco, Heisey) should be major league ready by this time next year if not sooner?

Look, I KNOW that you don't draft for need, and in almost all situations you take the best player available. However, in this situation, I don't think that Choice is the BPA most importantly, and secondly I do not believe that we should draft someone on the (super) fast track to the big leagues at a position where he is most likely to not be near the front of the organizational depth chart. This is another reason why I'm not as high on Brentz as most.

I'd much rather have another OF with significantly higher upside that is a little further from the big leagues (Sale or Wilson). Or, I'd rather have another player with better all-around game (Colon or Machado). Or best yet, I'd take the best player available- especially when it is at a position where we don't already have an extreme organizational backlog.

As far as the argument that you can just trade one of these guys if they are a real asset, I think it is harder to find a good fit than most people around here assume. We know the Brewers did it with Matt LaPorta, but so far the Reds have yet to turn a position prospect (ahem, Yonder Alonso) into any worthwhile piece. Corner players are just not nearly as much in demand as we'd like to believe, unless they are absolutely beating down the door, in which case 90% of this board would deem them untouchable anyway.

[Benihana]

From MLBTR:

SI's Jon Heyman has word on Bryce Harper's expected demand after the 17-year-old catcher is drafted next month. Heyman says the Scott Boras advisee "will seek to break last year's record $15.67 million bonus set by Stephen Strasburg."

Wouldn't be totally shocked if the Nationals avoid this headache and pass on Harper. Couldn't totally blame them if they took Pomeranz or Tallion instead.

[mdccclxix]

Good organizations don't work with windows. You wind up with windows because of poor planning and drafting for need falls right in line with that.

I know, I know, you can't force it. Yet, if there were two players equally rated, one's a polished slugger, one's a HS pitcher, I take the slugger this year. There is need throughout the organization for sluggers.

[fearofpopvol1]

From MLBTR:



Wouldn't be totally shocked if the Nationals avoid this headache and pass on Harper. Couldn't totally blame them if they took Pomeranz or Tallion instead.

Harper will have more leverage as a high school player than Strasburg did, but the Nats would be dumb to not sign this kid. He is not a once year kind of player. He's the type you build a franchise around.

[Benihana]

High school SS Marcus Littlewood is another guy to watch in rounds 2-4. From BA:

Littlewood is one of the best middle infielders available in a draft short on them. Though he's already big for the position at 6-foot-3 and 200 pounds, he has good defensive actions and arm strength, and he at least has a chance to remain at shortstop. He's a good athlete who runs well, and he's a switch-hitter with the potential to produce for power and average.

[edabbs44]

Good organizations don't work with windows. You wind up with windows because of poor planning and drafting for need falls right in line with that.

I'm fairly certain that the whole anti-"drafting for need" movement is unfounded.

[dougdirt]

I'm fairly certain that the whole anti-"drafting for need" movement is unfounded.

When 75% of first rounders fail to play a full season in the major leagues, drafting for need is beyond stupid because it takes your 1 out of 4 chance and makes it even worse because you didn't take the best player you could have.

[edabbs44]

When 75% of first rounders fail to play a full season in the major leagues, drafting for need is beyond stupid because it takes your 1 out of 4 chance and makes it even worse because you didn't take the best player you could have.

No one is saying to take a 4th round bat over a TOR arm just because there is a need for a bat. I think anyone who wants to see a bat being taken because of a need there is talking about one worthy of that selection.

But your post is actually in line with what I am thinking...75% of first rounders flame out and that's when GMs are actually thinking that they are taking the BPA. It's a crapshoot anyway. So if I am Cincy and I am sitting there with my next three top guys looking like SP, 1B and SS/LF and there isn't a huge gap in between any of them, I am all over the SS, whoever is sitting there. Why create controversy and a potential headache down the road when you aren't even filling a need?

[dougdirt]

No one is saying to take a 4th round bat over a TOR arm just because there is a need for a bat. I think anyone who wants to see a bat being taken because of a need there is talking about one worthy of that selection.

But your post is actually in line with what I am thinking...75% of first rounders flame out and that's when GMs are actually thinking that they are taking the BPA. It's a crapshoot anyway. So if I am Cincy and I am sitting there with my next three top guys looking like SP, 1B and SS/LF and there isn't a huge gap in between any of them, I am all over the SS, whoever is sitting there. Why create controversy and a potential headache down the road when you aren't even filling a need?

Because the odds are never good that a team has a race that close. Teams tend to buy into a guy that they know is going to be there and that is where they go. You aren't creating a controversy all that often by drafting someone. It has happened all of one time in the last what, 20 years for the Reds?

If I can get say a 25% chance of taking a major leaguer, I don't want to move my odds down to even 26% to simply avoid a potential issue in 2 years.

[edabbs44]

Because the odds are never good that a team has a race that close. Teams tend to buy into a guy that they know is going to be there and that is where they go. You aren't creating a controversy all that often by drafting someone. It has happened all of one time in the last what, 20 years for the Reds?

If I can get say a 25% chance of taking a major leaguer, I don't want to move my odds down to even 26% to simply avoid a potential issue in 2 years.

Controversy is one piece. The other is getting someone in house who your organization has more of a need for. I am fine if the BPA is an absolute stud at a position where there may not be an immediate need (RF comes to mind). But I would be looking for college hitters right now, in the LF/MI spots, catcher and 3B as well. And I would always look at pitchers.

If there isn't anyone there who is worthy of the spot, then I look around at other guys.

[dougdirt]

Controversy is one piece. The other is getting someone in house who your organization has more of a need for. I am fine if the BPA is an absolute stud at a position where there may not be an immediate need (RF comes to mind). But I would be looking for college hitters right now, in the LF/MI spots, catcher and 3B as well. And I would always look at pitchers.

If there isn't anyone there who is worthy of the spot, then I look around at other guys.

You are starting off by limiting the options of making your organization better from the very beginning though with thinking like that.