Batter's Box Interactive Magazine Batter's Box Interactive Magazine Batter's Box Interactive Magazine
Yesterday I looked at the Blue Jays drafts from 1997 to 2003. On average the Jays drafts have produced one major league player per year, about average for the draft. Today I will do the same for the A’s, the Twins and the Indians.

Minnesota Twins

1997 draft

Round 1: Michael Cuddyer, (9th pick overall), major league regular (might end up as a part-timer)
Round 1: Matt LeCroy, part timer
Round 2: Michael Restovich, a prospect

Summary: A potentially successful draft, Cuddyer is just about a regular but could revert to a part timer

1998 draft

Round 14: Mike Gosling, cup of coffee
Round 17: JJ Putz, part time player
Round 24: Juan Padilla, cup of coffee
Round 34: Kevin Frederick, cup of coffee

Summary: The 1998 draft was not a good one for the Twins

1999 draft

Round 2: Rob Bowen, still a prospect
Round 3: Justin Morneau, major league regular
Round 26: Terry Tiffee, prospect

Summary: An average draft for the Twins, one regular and a couple of prospects

2000 draft

Round 1: Adam Johnson, cup of coffee
Round 2: JD Durbin, still a prospect, although likely headed for the bullpen
Round 12: Jason Kubel, still a prospect although just badly tore his knee and will likely miss all of 2005

Summary: The final verdict is still not in but this looks like an average to below average draft, the Kubel injury does lower this rating.

2001 draft

Round 1: Joe Mauer, 1st pick overall, major league regular
Round 13: Jason Bartlett, a prospect

Summary: I have not factored draft position into my analysis, although you will see this point come up again under the A’s review. Mauer’s potential makes this a successful draft, but when you have the #1 pick in the whole draft you expect to land a very good player.

2002 draft

Round 1: Denard Span, a prospect, barely
Round 2: Jesse Crain, a prospect, a likely part time player in the bullpen, could be considered a full timer if he makes it as a closer.

Summary: The 2002 draft could be average, at best.

2003 draft

Round 1: Matt Moses, a prospect although hampered by injuries

Summary: Not a good draft

To summarize, here is a chart of the last seven drafts:

Regular Part time Cup Coffee Prospect
1997 1 1 1
1998 0 1 3
1999 1 0 0 2
2000 0 0 1 2
2001 1 0 0 1
2002 0 0 0 2
2003 0 0 0 1

I was very surprised to see how poor the draft results for the Twins were over the last seven years. I expected to see a number of players coming through the system to justify their reputation as a good drafting and development team. From 1997 through 2001 the Twins had excellent draft positions as they lost an average of 92 games in the preceding years; with the exception of Mauer they were unable to capitalize on their good drafting position. Later I will look at the Twins roster to see where some of the players, that led them to division titles, came from.

Baseball America recently published the Twins top 10 prospects. Mauer, Kubel, Crain, Durbin and Bartlett made the list along with one non-drafted player, two 2004 picks, Moses and another pitcher who struggled at Triple A. Per Baseball America the Twins have a large number of pitchers in the minor leagues who can throw in the nineties, whether they become major leaguers or not is another issue. BA would give Minnesota’s minor league system a good rating because of “tools” like a 90+mph fastball, but their record in the last few years does not place them among the elite development systems.


Oakland A’s

1997 draft (The A’s had four 1st round picks)

Round 1: Eric DuBose part timer
Round 2: Chad Harville part timer
Round 3: Marcus Jones, cup of coffee
Round 6: Tim Hudson, regular
Round 8: Adam Piatt, cup of coffee

Summary: The 1997 draft was moderately successful. The A’s landed an all-star and not much else despite four first round picks

1998 draft

Round 1: Mark Mulder, 2nd pick overall, regular
Round 2: Gerald Laird, part timer
Round 5: Jason Hart, cup of coffee
Round 8: Eric Byrnes, regular
Round 9: Jon Adkins, part timer
Round 13: Jeff Bajenaru, prospect
Round 23: Tyler Yates, prospect

Summary: The 1998 draft was very successful, an all-star plus another regular. Here is another example of the benefit of a very high draft slot.

1999 draft

Round 1: Barry Zito, 9th pick overall, regular
Round 2: Ryan Ludwick, still a prospect, barely
Round 8: Justin Lehr, cup of coffee

Summary: Another average to moderately successful draft, based mainly on one player

2000 draft

Round 17: Rich Harden

Summary: An average draft

2001 draft, the last pre-Moneyball draft (The A’s had three 1st round picks)

Round 1: Bobby Crosby, a regular
Round 1: Jeremy Bonderman, a regular
Round 2: Neil Cotts, part timer
Round 7: Dan Johnson, prospect
Round 10: Mike Wood, a prospect

Summary: A very successful draft, at least two major league regulars, maybe more, although again, the A’s had three first round picks

2002 draft, the Moneyball draft (The A’s had four 1st round picks)

Round 1: Nick Swisher, A’s #6 prospect
Round 1: Joe Blanton, A’s #2 Prospect
Round 1: Mark Teahen, Royals prospect
Round 4: John Baker, prospect

Summary: Another very successful draft, although the A’s did have four first round picks.

2003 draft The A’s had three 1st round picks

It is hard to evaluate the A’s 2003 draft, only a couple of players have made it to AA, the best known would be Omar Quintanilla who is a prospect and should play in the majors, although his role is being questioned by BA. The top pick was Brad Sullivan, a pitcher who has done OK in A ball. When I read the BA top 20 prospects by league the A’s do not fare well, it could be that the A’s do not select “toolsy” players, or it could be that the A’s drafts were not great. At AA Mark Teahen was the only A’s type player selected, at High A, Omar Quintanilla was the only one. There might be other guys but I will stick with the above and give Oakland two prospects for the 2003 class.

BA’s top ten Oakland prospects has three international free agents, three 2004 draftees, plus Swisher, Blanton, Johnson and Quintanilla.

To summarize, here is a chart of the last seven drafts:

Regular Part time Cup Coffee Prospect
1997 1 2 2
1998 2 2 1 2
1999 1 0 1 1
2000 1 0 0 0
2001 2 1 0 2
2002 2 0 0 2
2003 0 0 0 2

The Oakland A’s had draft success more in quality than quantity. Nine regulars over seven years, considering how many first round picks Oakland have had, is an average performance. But with Hudson, Mulder and Zito they selected an all-star three straight years. Overall I would rank the three teams I have studied, in terms of draft success, as A’s, the Blue Jays and the Twins.

Where Next?
I still felt that I had some unanswered questions, how were Minnesota so good if their drafts have not been? Where did their homegrown talent come from?

Minnesota Twins home grown talent

Brad Radke 1991 8th round from HS
Torii Hunter 1993 1st round from HS
AJ Pierzynski 1994 3rd round from HS
Corey Koskie 1994 26th round from JC
Christian Guzman 1994 UFA
Doug Mienkiewitz 1995 5th round from College
Luis Rivas 1995 UFA
Jacque Jones 1996 2nd round from College

In the 1993 to 1996 period the Twins drafted and/or signed seven useful players, three more than would be expected. Five of the useful players were drafted while two were undrafted free agents. By expanding their pool of talent into the Caribbean, and having a couple of hits there, the Twins were able to take their hit rate on the draft and expand it into a roster worth of players. Also note that the picks from 1991 to 1994 were high school players who developed around the same time as the college players selected in 1995 and 1996.

So to answer my question regarding how the Twins developed their team, the Twins have been successful, in part, due to the drafts of 1993 to 1996. These four drafts were slightly above average, but the Twins also sourced players elsewhere. The selection of Johan Santana through the rule 5 draft was a big part of their success and the two undrafted free agents turned five good draft picks into eight major league regulars.

The Twins have the reputation of having a strong player development system, built around high school players. That was somewhat true in the mid nineties, but, from 1998 to 2003 the draft has not been as kind to the Twins. That mid-nineties core of talent has driven the Twins success over the last few years. From 1997 to 2001 the Twins look like they have developed only two everyday players and one of them was the first overall pick, so unless the Twins success rates pick up, they could be heading for some lean times ahead.

This also brings us back to the comment I made about general manager evaluation and players reaching the major leagues. Like it or not general managers get credit for the players who make it on their watch, so JP Ricciardi gets credit for Brandon League and Gabe Gross, etc. Terry Ryan gets credit for the successful drafts in the mid nineties, but I have not heard criticisms of his recent drafts.


Oakland A’s

Lets look at some of the players drafted by the A’s since 1996.

1996 Eric Chavez 1st round from HS
1997 Tim Hudson 6th round from college
1998 Mark Mulder 1st round from college
1999 Barry Zito 1st round from college
2000 Rich Harden 17th round from JC
2001 Bobby Crosby 1st round from college
2002 Nick Swisher and Joe Blanton

The first four are all-stars, the next two could fall into the same category, and who knows about Swisher and Blanton? That is a very successful result from the draft, at least six quality players in consecutive years. How rare is this record? The odds of getting an all-star in a draft are around 40%. The odds of getting six straight are 4/10 to the power of six, or a thousand to one shot. Did the A’s hit that thousand to one shot because of luck, or because of a strong scouting and player development system? This subject could be debated at length, and has been, without reaching a conclusion. This is the core of the anti-Moneyball argument, that this group of players are a statistical anomaly and not evidence of skill in the front office. A’s supporters claim that Oakland have developed a system of drafting top prospects that will continue into the future.

Also note that Eric Chavez was a high school selection, when he made it to the major leagues the college players were there or coming at the same time, so again many players arriving in the big leagues at the same time lets them develop and learn together.

Summary

So to summarize, the Twins had good results from the draft, and international signings, in 1993 to 1996 and that has provided the core of players for their recent success. Oakland has not developed a huge number of players, considering their large number of first round picks, but the ones they have developed have become top quality players and that has driven their success. The unanswered question for me is: Is a teams draft success a result of good drafting, or is it luck? Generally, before the draft, there is a consensus regarding 20 to 25 of the first 30 players to be drafted. If I pick John Smith at pick #10 and someone else picks Jake Jones at pick #11; and Smith is a stiff, and Jones is an all-star, am I dumb or am I unlucky? If I had not taken Smith with pick #10 then someone else would have taken him from pick #11 through #20, so are we both dumb?

What About Another Team?

I decided to look at another team, the Cleveland Indians who had a strong 2004 with a strong group of young players.

1997 draft

Round 1: Tim Drew, a part-timer
Round 9: Dustan Mohr, another part-timer

Summary: Not a successful draft, no regular

1998 draft

Round 1: CC Sabathia, an all-star
Round 2: Zach Sorenson, a cup of coffee
Round 5: Ryan Drese, regular
Round 15: Matt White, cup of coffee

Summary: The 1998 draft was excellent, Sabathia and Drese make it above average

1999 draft

Round 6: Andrew Brown, a prospect
Round 10: Fernando Cabrera, a prospect
Round 21: Jason Davis, a prospect

Summary: A below average draft for the Indians

2000 draft

Round 1: Corey Smith, a prospect, but only barely
Round 2: Brian Tallet, cup of coffee
Round 14: Ryan Church, prospect with Montreal
Round 41: Eric Crozier, a prospect with Toronto

Summary: A below average draft

2001 draft

Summary: The worst draft in this study, no-one made it, and no-one is listed as a prospect

2002 draft

Round 1: Jeremy Guthrie, a prospect
Round 25: Nick Pesco, a prospect
Summary: Two prospects although neither are highly regarded. This could be an OK draft but it also might be unsuccesful

2003 draft

Round 1: Michael Aubrey; Brad Snyder; and Adam Miller, all prospects
Round 3: Ryan Garko, a prospect
Round 6: Kevin Kouzmanoff, a prospect

Summary: These guys look like a strong group, Miller is one of the top pitching prospects in all baseball.

To summarize, here is a chart of the last seven drafts:

Regular Part time Cup Coffee Prospect
1997 0 2
1998 2 0 2
1999 0 0 0 3
2000 0 0 1 3
2001 0 0 0 0
2002 0 0 0 2
2003 0 0 0 5

From 1997 until 2002 the Indians have produced only two regular players, Sabathia and Drese. Many of the players on their 2004 team were obtained by trades or signed as undrafted free agents. The major league Indians had a very good year in 2004 and Mark Shapiro received the usual accolades, but most of the young players on the roster were acquired by trade and were not fully developed home grown players. Cliff Lee, Travis Hafner, Grady Sizemore, Brandon Phillips, Ben Broussard and Coco Crisp were acquired via trade; Victor Martinez was an undrafted free agent.


What does this mean for the Jays?

The average success level for a draft is one major league regular

If you are using the draft to restock your team you need to develop some all-stars along with the regulars

The last few Blue Jay drafts appear to be above average

In the short term the major league Jays are well positioned with a mix of high school (Ash) and college (Ricciardi) draftees all arriving at approximately the same time

Although the Jays system is deep it remains to be seen how many more major leaguers will be developed from the college heavy drafts

It will be tough to emulate Oakland’s success in the draft, they were either very smart or very lucky

It looks like it is better to be lucky than good

Success in international scouting can double your number of prospects if you can replicate your domestic success with international players


What did Gerry Learn? What is still left unanswered?

In evaluating general managers their success in the draft does not appear to be that important. Terry Ryan and Mark Shapiro have good reputations as general managers despite poor draft histories. Does this imply that trading and signing major league players is more important than success in the draft? Or perhaps your reputation is simply due to the bottom line, win games and you have a good reputation, lose and you are a bum.

Success in the draft in often a sign that the major league club will be successful in a few years, once the young players have a couple of years of major league experience

Oakland’s success in the draft looks unrepeatable, I think they were lucky with the quality of players selected. I calculated the odds at 1000 to 1, probably higher as their picks were pitchers.

Drafts can be evaluated quickly, we already have narrowed down the prospects from the Jays 2002 and 2003 drafts to 3 and 5 respectively.

The Jays do have some undrafted international free agents about to help them at the major league level, Guillermo Quiroz and Gustavo Chacin. Are the 2005 Jays still investing enough internationally to develop similar players?
A Blue Jay Draft Study - Part II | 40 comments | Create New Account
The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.
Mike Green - Tuesday, February 08 2005 @ 11:23 AM EST (#395) #
Excellent, Gerry. I concur with your analysis, and agree precisely with the questions that arise from it.

The particulars of "prospect-hunting" in China (where the Jays have been active recently) and in Latin America and South America (where they have been less active recently) would be an interesting research topic.
_Dean - Tuesday, February 08 2005 @ 11:23 AM EST (#396) #
Sobering Gerry. You blew a hole in my Terry Ryan bubble. His 2004 draft will make up for it though, right Craig B? :)
_Prisoner of Ham - Tuesday, February 08 2005 @ 11:23 AM EST (#397) #
Thanks Gerry. Nice work.
In my view the data certainly seems to support the general Ricciardi philosophy of going for higher-percentage college picks, given how little major league talent is generated by even a successful draft.
The A's had a couple of years there when they were standing a foot away from the dart board (all those 1st round picks) and they still rarely hit the bull's eye.
_Ducey - Tuesday, February 08 2005 @ 12:01 PM EST (#398) #
It is amazing how many 1st round picks the A's acquired (21 over 7 years). Obviously this was intentional and is part of their strategy. It is also sobering to see how many actually turned into regulars (4! (6 if you count Swisher and Blanton)).

I find it utterly amazing that with all the time and resources that go into development that a successful draft would mean you would go 2 for 50.

Thanks for the education Gerry
_Matthew E - Tuesday, February 08 2005 @ 12:13 PM EST (#399) #
The other issue is this - how many draft picks *can* be successful each year? If we take into account:

a) how many jobs open up on a team in an average year,
b) how many players enter an organization's minor-league system in an average year, and
c) how many minor-league roster spots an organization has

there are only a certain number of prospects that a big-league team can use every year. So there are limiting factors from above, too.
Dave Till - Tuesday, February 08 2005 @ 12:55 PM EST (#400) #
Great work, Gerry.

I dug out some of my old Blue Jays media guides and checked out their draft results for comparison. The early guides conveniently list all draftees still in the organization at that time, which helps.

June 1977:
Jesse Barfield - regular
Average draft.

June 1978
Lloyd Moseby, Dave Stieb - regulars
Great draft if you get those two at once!

Jan 1979
Mark Eichhorn - regular
I don't know how to rank January drafts

1980:
nobody

June 1981
John Cerutti - regular; Mike Sharperson - part-timer, but turned into Guzman
Average draft.

June 1982
David Wells, Jimmy Key, Pat Borders - regulars; I think Dave Stenhouse had a cup of coffee. Two of these guys were still in the majors in 2004! Great draft, obviously.

1983, The Year Of The Catcher
Matt Stark, Jeff DeWillis, Jeff Hearron - all catchers, all taken in the first four rounds, all cups of coffee. Were they not happy with Whitt and Martinez?
Glenallen Hill is also out of this draft, so the draft ranks as about average. Strange emphasis on backstops, though.

June 1984:
Greg Myers - I count him as a regular.
Eric Yelding - part-timer.
Average draft.

June 1985:
Todd Stottlemyre (1st round supplemental) - regular
Jeff Musselman (6th round) - part-timer
Kevin Batiste (2nd round) - cup of coffee
Average draft.

January 1986 draft yielded Mark Whiten.

June 1986:
Pat Hentgen, Willie Blair - regulars
Randy Knorr, Steve Cummings, Doug Linton - cups of coffee
Above-average, slightly.

1987:
Derek Bell, Mike Timlin - regulars
Alex Sanchez (the pitcher) - cup of coffee
Slightly above average.

1988:
Ed Sprague - regular (stop giggling)
David Weathers - regular, more or less
Ray Giannelli - cup of coffee
Average, since Weathers is only a sort-of regular, and Sprague wasn't that good.

1989:
John Olerud, Jeff Kent - regulars (Kent went in 20th round)
Ed Zosky, Aaron Small - cup of coffee
Above-average. Zosky was the 1st round pick; Olerud made it to the 3rd round only because everybody assumed he would stay in college.

1990:
Steve Karsay - regular
Felipe Crespo, Howard Battle, Scott Brow, Paul Menhart, Huck Flener - cups of coffee
Average at best

1991:
Shawn Green, Alex Gonzalez - regulars
Steve Sinclair - cup of coffee
Pretty good

1992:
Shannon Stewart - regular
Tim Crabtree - part-timer
Tom Evans, Jeff Patzke - cup of coffee
Average

1993:
Chris Carpenter - regular
Adam Melhuse - cup of coffee
Below average. The Jays had two supplemental first-round picks; they both stiffed.

1994:
Kevin Witt - part-timer
Andy Thompson - cup of coffee
Poor draft.

1995:
Roy Halladay - regular
Ryan Freel - close to regular status by now, I think
Any draft with Doc in it has to be considered successful.

1996:
Billy Koch - regular, I guess
Brent Abernathy, Casey Blake - part-timer
Clayton Andrews, John Bale, Joe Lawrence - cups of coffee
I guess this is an average draft.

From this, I would venture that the Jays' drafting has been more or less average over the years. 1978, 1982 and 1989 are the only clearly above-average years.

During the Gillick years, the Jays had two advantages over the opposition:

1) They cleaned up in the Rule V draft, picking six major league regulars between 1977 and 1985 (Upshaw, Bell, Gott, Acker, Gruber, Lee).

2) Thanks to Epy Guerrero, they had a pipeline into the Dominican Republic.

No matter how smart J.P. and his brain trust become, they won't be able to repeat Gillick's successes in this area because the world has changed. Other GM's aren't dumb enough to expose top prospects in the Rule V draft any more, and everybody's scouting in the Dominican (and everywhere else) nowadays.
_MatO - Tuesday, February 08 2005 @ 12:55 PM EST (#401) #
I think BP mentioned a study recently that over a 3 year period nearly one-half of all pitchers will go on the DL. This doesn't take into account pitchers who lose velocity without an obvious injury (like Brad Sullivan). This accounts for a big chunk of the failure of prospects to reach the majors.
Mike Green - Tuesday, February 08 2005 @ 01:16 PM EST (#402) #
Two comments on Dave Till's work. 1991 with Shawn Green and Alex Gonzalez has to be considered an above average draft. Green was a star and Gonzo a solid regular (even if he didn't develop the way everyone hoped). And this:

Other GM's aren't dumb enough to expose top prospects in the Rule V draft any more

Can't say that I agree with this. At age 20, Alex Romero excelled in the FSL, and had the best translated numbers of any prospect according to Baseball Prospectus. He was left exposed in this year's Rule 5 draft, and to my surprise, he was not taken. I am quite sure that he is a better prospect than Manny Lee was.
_Dean - Tuesday, February 08 2005 @ 01:31 PM EST (#403) #
Craig Wilson has to be added to the '95 draft class.
_Tucker - Tuesday, February 08 2005 @ 01:32 PM EST (#404) #
A huge oversite was made in the evaluation of the Blue Jays draft in 1997! Mike Young was a 5th rounder that yr also and the Blue Jays didn't have a pick in the 2nd round that yr and also done with the 5 lowests bonus budgets in the major leagues in 97. That makes two all stars Young and Wells, one potential one in Hudson and one 10 game winner with a 71 win team in Tampa in Hendrickson. So I would guess you might have to upgrade that 97 draft? Also give an A for persistence, Hudson was drafted the yr before in 96 and the Jays stuck with him and drafted and signed him in 98.
_Jim - Tuesday, February 08 2005 @ 01:32 PM EST (#405) #
Cristian Guzman isn't really Minnesota grown. He was part of the Knoblauch deal.
Gerry - Tuesday, February 08 2005 @ 01:45 PM EST (#406) #
Thanks Tucker, Michael Young in 1997 makes that year an excellent year for the Jays draft.
Dave Till - Tuesday, February 08 2005 @ 02:20 PM EST (#407) #
Can't say that I agree with this. At age 20, Alex Romero excelled in the FSL, and had the best translated numbers of any prospect according to Baseball Prospectus.

Here's my take on that: it's a long way from the FSL to the majors, so the team that drafted Romero would basically have a 24-man roster for a year. Since teams usually go with 12 pitchers nowadays, that would leave only three reserve players (two if the team uses the DH).

MLB should probably expand rosters to 27 players, since the limit of 25 was created back when teams had 9 or 10 active pitchers. But the owners would never go for that.
Mike Green - Tuesday, February 08 2005 @ 03:00 PM EST (#408) #
Well, let's imagine that you've got the Colorado Rockies. They've got very little chance of winning next year, and whether their 25th man is a seasoned pinch-hitter or Alex Romero (who would probably hit better than a pitcher, and could play a serviceable defensive outfield) has very little to do with whether they do succeed. I can't understand why they wouldn't choose Alex Romero for his long-term value.

The strategy that Gillick employed still makes sense for teams at the bottom. I think that you're giving too much credit to current GMs.
_Tucker - Tuesday, February 08 2005 @ 03:11 PM EST (#409) #
Also forgot in the 96 draft which included Josh Phelps which might boost that draft and Toronto still kept the rights to Orlando Hudson from the 96 draft. Scott Cassidy was a non drafted free agent signed before the draft in 98 and Kevin Cash was signed after the 99 draft which should be mentioned as a sidebar to those drafts. My next question to be about that 96 draft would be how would Casey Blake be a part timer? How many part timers do we have that 28 Home runs last yr and 46 in the last two, that just received a 3 yr contract?
_Andrew Stone - Tuesday, February 08 2005 @ 03:12 PM EST (#410) #
Doesn't this suggest that while the draft makes an impact it's not the whole story? Don't some organizations trade away players of the Carlos Delgado sature before they become free agents and receive young talent?
_Matthew E - Tuesday, February 08 2005 @ 03:19 PM EST (#411) #
MLB should probably expand rosters to 27 players, since the limit of 25 was created back when teams had 9 or 10 active pitchers. But the owners would never go for that.

You're assuming that there are pressures on teams forcing them to carry more than 9 or 10 pitchers, and that it's not simply a (questionable) strategic decision.
_Jim - Tuesday, February 08 2005 @ 03:23 PM EST (#412) #
'Well, let's imagine that you've got the Colorado Rockies. They've got very little chance of winning next year, and whether their 25th man is a seasoned pinch-hitter or Alex Romero (who would probably hit better than a pitcher, and could play a serviceable defensive outfield) has very little to do with whether they do succeed. I can't understand why they wouldn't choose Alex Romero for his long-term value.'

Because you don't get better by not playing. They will never get to use him, which would mean he would never improve, which would make him pretty useless.
_Tucker - Tuesday, February 08 2005 @ 03:31 PM EST (#413) #
Andrew, sure it doesn't make the story but it does set the table nicely and gives the organization some latitude to make some deals because they've acquired that kind of depth to get the players they need to make a winning organization. So you can see from the 95 draft on that the table was set pretty good, and that thee Toronto Blue amateur staff did a very good job compared to almost anyone in baseball as far as the draft went.
Mike Green - Tuesday, February 08 2005 @ 03:44 PM EST (#414) #
Because you don't get better by not playing. They will never get to use him, which would mean he would never improve, which would make him pretty useless.

George Bell went .233/.256/.350 in 169 ABs in 1981 at age 21 in Toronto, and it didn't stop him. I don't see why Romero couldn't do as well or better than that in Colorado in 2005, and I don't see why they couldn't give him 169 at-bats. He'd actually have the side benefit of the thin air making his stats look better than they are, so you probably wouldn't get the shot to the confidence that another context might give.
_Nicholas - Tuesday, February 08 2005 @ 03:49 PM EST (#415) #
What constitutes "propect" ??? Scott Baker, drafted 2003, is 10 on th BA list and not considered a prospect???
Gerry - Tuesday, February 08 2005 @ 03:57 PM EST (#416) #
Nicholas - which team and which year for the BA list?
Craig B - Tuesday, February 08 2005 @ 04:00 PM EST (#417) #
His 2004 draft will make up for it though, right Craig B? :)

It's actually looking pretty OK so far! Just have to keep some of those pitchers healthy...

Don't forget, just because the Minnesota HS guys haven't produced yet doesn't mean they won't. They're young yet, and have lots of time to turn it around (maybe not for the Twins, but somewhere...)

On the A's 2003 draft... they did not have seven first-rounders, they had three. They got

The second-rounder was a big LH outfielder from Arizona St. named Andre Ethier. Not a speed burner, but otherwise a tools guy, he's more of a spray hitter. So far, he looks OK, nothing special but not a non-prospect yet.

The three first-rounders are all pretty low, 25, 26 and 33, which makes them not much more than second-round picks. Quintanilla looks good. Sullivan's bveen disappointing (he was kinda disappointing as a junior, too) and Snyder is just doing what you'd expect from a first-rounder. I bet the A's see him as their future third baseman right now.
Craig B - Tuesday, February 08 2005 @ 04:05 PM EST (#418) #
Yes, incidentally, Scott Baker is a terrific prospect and belongs on any prospect list. 2nd round pick by the Twins in 2003. He struggled at Rochester, but otherwise has been very fine including some dominant performances in New Britain.

If you ask me, Baker's future is in relief - he's got a hard fastball, but there seem to be questions about his ability to dial the high heat for long periods of time. His secondary pitches are blah. But he's got great control.
Dave Till - Tuesday, February 08 2005 @ 04:06 PM EST (#419) #
Well, let's imagine that you've got the Colorado Rockies. They've got very little chance of winning next year, and whether their 25th man is a seasoned pinch-hitter or Alex Romero (who would probably hit better than a pitcher, and could play a serviceable defensive outfield) has very little to do with whether they do succeed.

Good point. Though, because of the wild card, most GM's think their team has a reasonable chance of winning next year (even if, in some cases, they are deluding themselves if they think this). Very few teams actually flat-out state that they're rebuilding; Cleveland is the only one I can think of.

Many of the poorer-quality teams are floundering without a clue, and wouldn't recognize that a player such as Romero could help them.
Pistol - Tuesday, February 08 2005 @ 04:08 PM EST (#420) #
Sullivan's been disappointing (he was kinda disappointing as a junior, too)

Back in 2003 I was hoping the Jays would take Sullivan over Hill when their pick came up. He had a really dominating year in 2002, and was good in 2003. IIRC he had a few bad starts just prior to the draft and fell because of that.

I believe Sickels said his velocity is down now so perhaps he got injured somewhere along the way (or perhaps he just wasn't that good).
_David Wang - Tuesday, February 08 2005 @ 04:17 PM EST (#421) #
Someone explain this to me please, I've always wondered how teams get 1 extra 1st round pick, and now i know that it's via Free Agency. But I am in shock of how Oakland can have 3 then 4 then 7!! 1st round picks, I know they have one of thier own, but then they had 2-6 players signed by other teams in one year???
_Jim - Tuesday, February 08 2005 @ 04:28 PM EST (#422) #
Let's say you grab Romero.

He sits on the bench most of the year gets say 100 abs. He is going to be overwhelmed and lose some confidence. It also puts him on the 40 man roster - meaning you have to remove someone else.

Now he goes back to say AA the following year at 22, he's at AAA at 23. At 24, maybe he's ready to contribute - but he's already lost an entire year of development - that's his last option year. Now at 25 when he's going to be useful he's in Wily Mo Pena territory - has to stay on the roster or you lose him. He's tied up a 40-man slot for 3 years and his contribution has been a net negative at the major league level.

It's one thing if the guy can slide into the lineup and contribute like Gibbons. It's might also be useful to stick a pitcher in the back of the bullpen and save his arm some work at a young age. Trying to carry a postion player that far away from being able to contribute is tough.

Maybe it's worth a shot, but Colorado especially needs bench players it can use because they really do have to carry 12 pitchers.
_Thaskins - Tuesday, February 08 2005 @ 04:37 PM EST (#423) #
http://bluejays.mostvaluablenetwork.com/
One thing that needs to be mentioned and probably looked at in this process is the “Hype Machine.” I think you can call a player a success if another organization is willing to trade minor or major league talent for him. It doesn’t matter how the player turns out. If another teams gives up a player for someone in the Blue Jays organization I’d have to call that a success. The Red Sox and Yankees are great at this as it seems like they always have some great up and coming prospect other teams are willing to trade their overpriced veterans for.
Pistol - Tuesday, February 08 2005 @ 04:59 PM EST (#424) #
I've always wondered how teams get 1 extra 1st round pick, and now i know that it's via Free Agency. But I am in shock of how Oakland can have 3 then 4 then 7!! 1st round picks

The simple version:

If you have an unrestricted free agent you offer arbitration to, and that player signs elsewhere you get compensation. In the case of top players it's the 1st round pick of the team that signed the player plus a sandwich pick which is between round 1 and round 2 (but typically considered a 1st round pick).

So if you have 3 players leave and get 2 picks each for them and your own pick you're up to 7.
_Nicholas - Tuesday, February 08 2005 @ 05:18 PM EST (#425) #
Gerry Scott Baker. Minnesota Twins. 2003 2nd round. 2004 BaseballAmerica top 10 for the Twins...
Gerry - Tuesday, February 08 2005 @ 05:54 PM EST (#426) #
Thanks Nicholas. I am not that familiar with the Twins system but BA did not seem high on him, although he was the #10 prospect. They note he struggled at AAA and say he is almost at his ceiling, so I left him out. It sounds like you think he should still be a prospect.
_Jim - Tuesday, February 08 2005 @ 06:20 PM EST (#427) #
http://cir.blogspot.com
I've seen Baker pitch. He seemed to me like he's got a pretty good arm. He played in college in 2003, then went to Midwest League. He played through 3 different levels in 2004 - FSL/EL/IL. His numbers were great at AA, which is where I saw him. 9.2 k/9 and only 1.7 bb/9. That was over 70 innings. He did get knocked around at AAA, a 5 ERA over 54 innings. It was the end of a season where he went through 3 levels in his second pro season at the age of 23.

If Rob Bowen is a prospect, then by all means Scott Baker is.

The guy who writes the Cleveland Indians Report has great breakdowns of the Indians drafts from about 99-2003. COMN for the site - it might take a little searching when you get there to find them. I think he calls the Indians 2001 draft one of the worst in the era of the amature draft.
_Jim - Tuesday, February 08 2005 @ 06:28 PM EST (#428) #
http://cirdraft.blogspot.com/
Here is the link to the Indians draft reviews. They are a little dated at this point....

I could have sworn there were more then 2000 & 2001, but that is all I see now.
Thomas - Tuesday, February 08 2005 @ 06:56 PM EST (#429) #
Since teams usually go with 12 pitchers nowadays, that would leave only three reserve players (two if the team uses the DH).

Dave, I think you mean four and three, respectively. Twelve pitchers leaves 13 position players, and with an 8-man starting lineup that leaves five on the bench, four if you count DH. And thus that equals four and three if you count Romero (or another similarly raw toolsy Rule V pick) as a non-contributor.
Dave Till - Tuesday, February 08 2005 @ 10:30 PM EST (#430) #
Dave, I think you mean four and three, respectively.

Yup, right you are. I think my point is still valid, even if my math is cruddy. :-)
_greenfrog - Tuesday, February 08 2005 @ 10:37 PM EST (#431) #
Great piece. The international angle is an interesting one. Having strong scouts in other countries--like the DR, Cuba, and Japan--definitely confers an advantage on some teams. (The Jays probably benefited more than anybody in the 1980s, thanks to Epy Guerrero.) This is another example of an issue that MLB is eventually going to have to address (whether through a world draft, or some other way of leveling the playing field).

Gerry, although you rate the Twins 1999-2001 drafts about average, it's worth noting that injuries have played a major role here. If the Twins had a healthy Morneau, Mauer, and Kubel throughout 2004 (and ready to go for 2005), those drafts would be looking pretty good.
Thomas - Tuesday, February 08 2005 @ 11:52 PM EST (#432) #
I agree its still valid, but not necessarily prohibitive. I would argue that Colorado, for example, would be hard-pressed to find roster room for a raw talent like Romero due to their certain need for a twelfth pitcher. However, some other non-contending teams probably could do a mixing scenario going with a short bench most of the time and then perhaps occasionally dropping down to eleven pitchers if they have several off-days in a short timespan, for example.

The problem also lies in the fact that non-contending teams often have "holes" at positions. Usually their rosters have several vacant positions where the team has no established regular. Due to this fact, non-contending teams will sometimes use the season to rotate several players through a position to attempt to determine if any of them have a future with the club, or if the team needs to look outside for a permanent solution for that position.

A nice example is 3B for the Reds last year where 4 players (Castro, Freel and Larson) all played over 250 innnings at the position, and 2 more (Felipe Lopez and Tim Hummell) played over 190. Even counting Freel as a super-utiltyman and accepting Lopez as primarily a SS, there are still three players who played the bulk of their time at 3B. It becomes tougher to carry less bench players if you have several players rotating at one position (or if you have a utilityman like Freel pressed into more service at one position then you'd like).

If you accept Larson and Castro rotating at 3B, a deadweight in Romero and then the team's backup catcher, suddenly a NL team is down to 2 bench spots or an AL team is down to 1. This leaves you with only one bench outfielder and infielder, or perhaps even less if there is another "platoon position" like above.

All in all, I still think that a few teams can manage to carry a "deadweight" player through the right roster makeup and careful roster management. However, it is quite tough to do, even in many rebuilding situations, and a team has to pick its spots carefully.
_Michael - Wednesday, February 09 2005 @ 02:08 AM EST (#433) #
I agree that it is tough for the rebuilding team. The other issue is that even rebuilding teams can't totally sacrifice the present for the future. If you are playing a simulated stratomatic or roto keeper league you can come dead last with a team of zeros morgaging everything for the future. In the real world the team at least has to make a good faith effort to be credible. So things like a decent bat of the bench or a platoon outfielder or what not can't be ignored.
_Spicol - Wednesday, February 09 2005 @ 10:45 AM EST (#434) #
Awesome stuff, Gerry.
A Blue Jay Draft Study - Part II | 40 comments | Create New Account
The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.