2009 MLB draft

[Mario-Rijo]

The more I read about Matzek and Purke, the more I'm convinced they aren't dominating enough to warrant a #8 pick. Arms like Porcello and Kazmir worked in the mid-90s with two big breaking pitches. Mind you, a HS arm would have to challenge Strasburg's status as the top overall arm in the draft in order to get me to take him in the top 10 picks.

I disagree Matzek is definitely worthy of the #8 pick. The guy sits 90-93 has good command and movement to it and also has command of 3 other good pitches slider, curve, change. BA rated all 3 as the best HS secondary pitches of anyone. He also has good clean mechanics and an easy delivery. Purke & Turner aren't far behind either. In fact I don't even think he'll be ava. at #8 barring something unforeseen.

My top 8 mock:
#1 - Nats - Strasburg RHP
#2 - M's - White RHP
#3 - Pads - Green SS
#4 - Pitt - Ackley 1B/CF/LF
#5 - O's - Crow RHP
#6 - Giants - K. Davis LF
#7 - Braves - Matzek LHP
#8 - Reds - Jacob Turner RHP

[Mario-Rijo]

Exactly. I don't think you can ever make any kind of statement like that about the baseball draft four months in advance. You NEVER know what will happen.

True probably getting ahead of myself. But it's too much fun not too.

[M2]

Let them have their spring season first. Porcello didn't solidify his status until he'd pitched as a senior. And the comparison to Strasburg is unfair -- arms like his are not in every draft.

Right now I still like Matzek quite a bit. Unsure about Purke. But there's a whole chunk of information about all of these guys that's still missing...

I get that the coming baseball season will be of utmost importance here. We all know the draft board will be in for a major reorganization this spring.

Yet I think you're missing my point on HS arms. Unless they are like Strasburg -- e.g. rare arms that you don't find in every draft -- then I'm not burning a top 10 pick on them. Move down to the middle of the first round and I'd start to get interested in a kid like Matzek.

[M2]

I disagree Matzek is definitely worthy of the #8 pick. The guy sits 90-93 has good command and movement to it and also has command of 3 other good pitches slider, curve, change. BA rated all 3 as the best HS secondary pitches of anyone. He also has good clean mechanics and an easy delivery. Purke & Turner aren't far behind either. In fact I don't even think he'll be ava. at #8 barring something unforeseen

90-93? Yawn.

Command? Hey, Homer Bailey had that.

Good clean mechanics? You mean just like Chris Gruler?

Aside from that, the top-rated HS arm in February usually isn't the top kid in June.

On a side note, the Reds ought to stay away from shortstops from LSU.

[OnBaseMachine]

I'm very intrigued by Kyle Gibson. His fastball is currently only 90-91 with plus life but he's got a ton of projection remaining. At 6-6 and 195 pounds, he's got plenty of room to fill out and add velocity. Some scouts think he could add as much as five mph to his fastball. He also throws a plus slider and a changeup that needs work. Some scouts compare him to John Lackey. If he's still around at number eight I would strongly consider taking him.

[lollipopcurve]

Yet I think you're missing my point on HS arms. Unless they are like Strasburg -- e.g. rare arms that you don't find in every draft -- then I'm not burning a top 10 pick on them. Move down to the middle of the first round and I'd start to get interested in a kid like Matzek.

Don't buy it. In recent years we've had Clayton Kershaw and Chris Volstad come out as the #1 HS arms, yet neither was considered to have an otherworldly arm like Strasburg or Beckett. The opportunity to grab the best HS arm is a significant one -- if Matzek remains the #1 guy, it sounds as if he has the polish and the projectability to warrant the choice, in my opinion.

[dougdirt]

Don't buy it. In recent years we've had Clayton Kershaw and Chris Volstad come out as the #1 HS arms, yet neither was considered to have an otherworldly arm like Strasburg or Beckett. The opportunity to grab the best HS arm is a significant one -- if Matzek remains the #1 guy, it sounds as if he has the polish and the projectability to warrant the choice, in my opinion.

The point is though that M2 wouldn't have drafted them (well, maybe Kershaw) because he doesn't like waiting around for them to develop and hoping they can stay healthy because of the money attached to such a high pick.

I don't buy into his theory on it either, but thats where he is coming from (I think).

[M2]

Don't buy it. In recent years we've had Clayton Kershaw and Chris Volstad come out as the #1 HS arms, yet neither was considered to have an otherworldly arm like Strasburg or Beckett. The opportunity to grab the best HS arm is a significant one -- if Matzek remains the #1 guy, it sounds as if he has the polish and the projectability to warrant the choice, in my opinion.

Volstad doesn't really fit. He was a #16 pick in 2005. Like I said, middle of the 1st round and I'd start looking at HS arms.

And the Dodgers passed on Lincecum to draft Kershaw. It may have already cost that team a World Series.

Plus, I suspect both of those kids are in for some struggles/setbacks during the next two or three seasons (see Bailey, Homer).

[stock]

I think it may be a bit early to target specific players. On draft day you target the best player available after the first 7 picks are made. It is safe to say that the board will change in the next four months. If it is a HS player you take him, be it a pitcher or regular.

The Dodgers did pass on Lincecum to take Kershaw. That doesn't mean Kershaw wasn't a great pick. I understand how a Reds fan can cringe when a HS pitcher is taken (see Gruler or Howington). Hopefully Bailey will change that perspective.

The one exception to the best player philosophy could be if the best player available is a college player who plays either corner infield or corner outfield. Between Votto, EdE, Dickerson, Bruce, Francisco, Frazier, Alonzo, Soto and Dorn the Reds may be overstacked at these 4 positions.

[lollipopcurve]

Volstad doesn't really fit. He was a #16 pick in 2005. Like I said, middle of the 1st round and I'd start looking at HS arms.

But he has performed like a top 10 pick. That's the point.

And the Dodgers passed on Lincecum to draft Kershaw. It may have already cost that team a World Series.

If there's a Lincecum-like college arm available to the Reds at #8 this year, sure, it would be wise to draft him. But the point was that Kershaw has proven to be a top-10 worthy pick, and he was not the "rare" arm you're claiming a HS must be to warrant a look inside the top 10.

I simply don't buy that the top 3-5 college arms plus the top 3-5 college bats plus the top 3-5 HS bats, each one, MUST be a better pick than the top HS arm in a year in which the top HS arm is not a Beckett/Strasberg arm. I don't think the draft works that way.

The top of this draft is shaping up to look like the top of the Lincecum draft, as it looks right now. Lots of college arms, light on bats.

1. Hochevar (college arm)
2. Reynolds (college arm -- has been injured)
3. Longoria
4. Lincoln (college arm -- has been injured)
5. Morrow (college arm)
6. A. Miller (widely reputed to the top college arm at the time -- wrong)
7. Kershaw
8. Stubbs
9. Rowell
10. Lincecum

As it looks now, Kershaw was worthy of a top 5 pick that year.

With Strasburg, White, Gibson, Volz, Minor, Oliver and Crow (among others), you could have 6 college arms in the top 10 again. Something tells me that all 6 of those guys won't outperform whoever turns out to be the best HS arm in this draft.

[M2]

But he has performed like a top 10 pick. That's the point.

So have 15 other guys from that draft, which is also the point.

If there's a Lincecum-like college arm available to the Reds at #8 this year, sure, it would be wise to draft him. But the point was that Kershaw has proven to be a top-10 worthy pick, and he was not the "rare" arm you're claiming a HS must be to warrant a look inside the top 10.

Kershaw may or may not be a good major league pitcher in the final analysis. He's a hot property, that's a good thing to be. He's also got control issues and it wouldn't be stunning to see him struggle with those and for the Dodgers to pass him along before he gets established. Meanwhile, it's fairly common that someone drops.

I simply don't buy that the top 3-5 college arms plus the top 3-5 college bats plus the top 3-5 HS bats, each one, MUST be a better pick than the top HS arm in a year in which the top HS arm is not a Beckett/Strasberg arm. I don't think the draft works that way.

Are you willing to wait around for 5-7 years is the real question. Most clubs aren't and they'd do better to admit that upfront. John Danks and Gavin Floyd both pitched well last season. Fat lot of good it did the Rangers and Phillies. It's not necessarily about quality, it's about getting an ROI.

Two years ago, people were acting like Homer Bailey had made it too. He hadn't and, two years later, he's on his last option.

[lollipopcurve]

So have 15 other guys from that draft, which is also the point.

But he was the consensus top HS pitcher, as was Volstad. Those guys are easy to see, and, I would say, shortsighted to overlook based on whether you're picking at 8 or 18.

Kershaw may or may not be a good major league pitcher in the final analysis. He's a hot property, that's a good thing to be.

Exactly. I believe you made the same point about Porcello. Bailey, too, was a hot property at one time (and may still have value).

John Danks and Gavin Floyd both pitched well last season. Fat lot of good it did the Rangers and Phillies. It's not necessarily about quality, it's about getting an ROI.

That's not really a draft issue, that's a development issue. It's not the scouting director's fault if his organization loses patience with a kid or doesn't "unlock his potential," only to see the kid prosper elsewhere. (FWIW, Danks brought the Rangers Brandon McCarthy, who was a hot properrty at that time, too.)

Are you willing to wait around for 5-7 years is the real question.

For HS pitchers overall, that's true. But when you're talking the top, top talent -- which is what we're talking about here -- the time frame is shorter.

[M2]

That's not really a draft issue, that's a development issue.

My kids want a dog. Picking up after themselves so the house stays dog-proofed? Ready to pick up after the dog? Ready to get up early to walk the dog every morning? Ready to walk the dog no matter the weather? No so much.

Someone's got to be the adult and say, "You're not ready for a dog."

For HS pitchers overall, that's true. But when you're talking the top, top talent -- which is what we're talking about here -- the time frame is shorter.

No it isn't. Top 15 HS pitchers 1996-2004 who weren't able to pitch 162+ IP with ERA+ better than 100 in a single season prior to age 23 (e.g. five years into pro ball).

John Patterson
Matt White
Adam Eaton
Bobby Seay
Geoff Getz
Jon Garland
Aaron Akin
J.M. Gold
Josh Beckett
Josh Girdley
Brett Myers
Ty Howington
Jason Stumm
Mike Stodolka
Matt Harrington
Matt Wheatland
Mark Phillips
Joe Torres
Gavin Floyd
Colt Griffin
Mike Jones
Chris Gruler
Adam Loewen
Clint Everts
Zack Greinke
John Danks
Mark Rogers
Homer Bailey

Top 15 HS pitchers 1996-2004 who were able to post at least one season of 162+ IP with an ERA+ of at least 100 at age 22 or less (e.g. inside of four years).

Scott Kazmir

So where are these top, top talents who are ready early?

[stock]

First of all lets get the facts straight. There were 27 high school pitchers drafted in the first 15 picks from 1996-2004.

Five (Jon Garland, Brett Myers, Zack Greinke, Kazmir, Danks) of these 27 pitched at least 162 innings in their first 5 years and a 6th, Josh Beckett, pitched over 150.

42 non HS pitchers were drafted with the first 15 picks in the same time frame. 11 of these had at least one year of 162 IP in their first 5 years after being drafted.

College players win 26% to 22%. Not a noticable difference. Pitchers who have pitched at least 162 innings in their career HS players win 33% to 28%.

However once you look at the pitchers that have pitched 162 innings in their career it looks as if you may be better off selecting a HS pitcher as opposed to a college pitcher. Which group of players would you rather have for your staff?

HS: John Patterson, Adam Eaton, Jon Garland, Josh Beckett, Brett Myers, Gavin Floyd, Zack Greinke, Scott Kazmir and John Danks

Three studs (Beckett, Greinke and Kazmir), three good pitchers (Myers, Floyd and Danks) and Garland. Two had injury filled careers and are now out of baseball or should be.

College: John Benson, Brandon Looper, Mark Mulder, Jeff Weaver, Barry Zito, Ben Sheets, Mark Prior, Jeff Francis, Jon Saunders, Paul Maholm, Justin Verlander and Jered Weaver.

Zero studs, three good pitchers (Saunders, Verlander and Weaver) and Looper, Zito, Maholm and Francis. It is tough to figure out where to place Sheets because he is injured so much. If healthy he is a stud. If Verlander pitched injured last year he qualifies as a stud. Six or seven of the 12 are injury risks (Benson, Looper, Mulder, Sheets, Prior, Verlander and Weaver). You can argue that Verlanader wasn't hurt last year but that just means he stunk because he isn't very good.

It seems to me that if you base your decision on who to draft for 2009 based upon the 1996-2004 drafts you avoid college pitchers not HS pitchers. Why draft a pitcher who if he makes it to the show is an injury risk.

Even though only 39% of the players drafted in your time frame were HS pitchers, at least 60% of them are currently in the top 10 of pitchers.

[M2]

First of all lets get the facts straight. There were 27 high school pitchers drafted in the first 15 picks from 1996-2004.

Five (Jon Garland, Brett Myers, Zack Greinke, Kazmir, Danks) of these 27 pitched at least 162 innings in their first 5 years and a 6th, Josh Beckett, pitched over 150.

I've got 29, all named above. Not saying I'm right and you're wrong, just saying I've got 29.

The issue was how quickly are prime HS arms ready. It came up after I mentioned that you've got to be prepared to wait 5-7 years for them and lollipop insisted that's not so. I care about more than just innings. I want quality innings. So I chose 162 IP (the ERA title qualifying line) and a 100 or better ERA+ (which is a fair, park-neutral measurement).

And Kazmir is the only HS kid who made it in less than five years.

Myers took six years. Garland took five years (I'll give him the mulligan for a 99 ERA+ in 2002). Greinke took six years. Danks took five years. Beckett's an oddball. Officially it took him six years, though he pitched well for 142 IP in 2003 and then got white hot in the playoffs and won his team a World Series. So feel free to count him as four, five or six. Adding to his oddball status, Beckett was 19 when he got drafted.

42 non HS pitchers were drafted with the first 15 picks in the same time frame. 11 of these had at least one year of 162 IP in their first 5 years after being drafted.

And the majority of those were pitching like that inside of three years. So a top college pitcher generally gets you a return 2-4 years, a top HS pitcher in 5-7 years.

College players win 26% to 22%. Not a noticable difference.

This is where, IMO, your methodology falls apart. If you're drafting a kid you don't care about his entire potential career. You care about what he does for you. For instance, it did the Diamondbacks no good that John Patterson went on to have his one good season nine years later for the Nationals (who, oddly were the organization that drafted him, though he got out of that thanks to a loophole and signed with AZ).

Only 4 of the 29 HS arms delivered for the teams that drafted them. That's 14%, making 26% a whole heck of a lot better (and all 11 college pitchers did deliver 162+ IP, 100+ ERA+ seasons for the clubs that drafted them). That's nearly double the success rate on top of the faster rate of return.

I don't think teams want to be in the business of drafting and developing arms for other teams, which is what happens with top HS pitchers as often as not. In fact, I'd rather be the team that trades for them four or five years down the road after the team that drafted them get disillusioned. It would cost less and I'd have a clearer idea of what I'm buying. The draft acts as a trigger to get a kid some notice, expectations get inflated, trough of disillusionment hits, someone then takes the time to get the kid truly ready, then he reaches a productive plateau.

If only there was some well-known business world application of those premises, a documented hype cycle if you will, from which baseball could learn.

My criteria for taking a HS arm that high is the kid has got to be amazing. Very good doesn't cut it. I'll take my chances on 26% and a quicker rate of return otherwise (or position players). Since 1996 there are three pitchers who fit that profile - Beckett, Kazmir and Porcello. I'd have missed on Garland, Myers and Greinke, which I can totally live with.

Again, get into the lower half of the first round and I'm all ears when it comes to HS pitchers. If a kid drops a bit or you think you've got a hidden gem, go for it. Success rates plummet quickly in the draft.

As for who's a stud and who's not, from the arms we're talking about I'll take Zito, Mulder, Beckett, Sheets and Prior (in no specific order) as having had the five best single seasons of the pitchers drafted from 1996-2004.

In terms of current career value (not totally fair because these are works in progress and some are just starting their careers) - Zito, Mulder, Beckett, Kazmir and Sheets (again, in no specific order). In terms of future value (which is pure speculation), I'd take Verlander, Kazmir, Beckett, Weaver and one of Danks/Francis/Greinke.