2008 MLB Draft on Thursday

by marc w on Jun 3, 2008 12:49 PM PDT Comment 94 comments

So I'd planned a little draft FanPost for the lunch hour, but I see Dave Cameron beat me to it .

Go read that first... ok, got it? Here are a few other possibilities - guys who may go from 12-25 or so:

1: Yonder Alonso - 1b, Miami. He was a consensus top 5 or 10 pick earlier, but seems to be dropping as prep 1B Eric Hosmer rises. Would be a great bat, and a guy who could hit the ground running, but the odds still aren't great he'll be around at 20.

2: Casey Kelley, SS, Fla HS. Sounds similar to the prepster Anthony Hewitt, albeit with more physical tools and less baseball skill. Kelley's signed a letter of intent to be U. of Tennessee's QB, so it'd take a lot to sign him, and at this point his hitting performance doesn't match his body type. Could be another Hanley type like Hewitt, but he also screams Mike Morse to me (he's 6'4").

3: Shooter Hunt, RHP, Tulane. Great power pitcher, has hit 95, good offspeed pitch, but so so command. He may go earlier, but this is a decent high risk high reward pick for a college pitcher.

4: Ike Davis, OF, ASU. Pure hitter, he's almost guaranteed to be around when the M's pick. His teammate Brett Wallace is a great pure hitter as well, but if you can't get Wallace (he'll go around 10th-15th), Davis isn't a bad consolation prize. Decent power, though not quite the plate discipline of Wallace. A decent value pick if they really wanted a safe guy or a signable guy.

5: Conor Gillaspie, 3b, Wichita State. Another great pure hitter, hasn't played quite the competition of Davis/Wallace, and lacks pure power. Did well in the Cape Cod league (led it in average), but that plus his meh power makes me think of Matt Mangini.

6: Jake Odorizzi, RHP, Ill. HS. Good FB/CB pitcher with a low-90s FB and a good slow curve. Also developing a slider. Some scouts like his mechanics/delivery.

7: Gerrit Cole, RHP, CA. HS. True power pitcher who touches the mid/upper 90s. Makings of a slider and change. A Boras client, and someone whose mound demeanor has drawn some criticism. Maybe a rawer but more projectable version of Chris Tillman. He'll likely be there at 20, but will the M's go with another HS pitcher?

What should the M's do? Do you draft for need, or is that silly talk? HS or college? Pitcher or position player?

0 recs | Comment 94 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

While I know even less about the draft than usual since we don't have a high pick

I’m all about drafting the best player available. Not only do I think it’s silly to draft for need (save for rare circumstances), but we have needs at every single position anyway, so we could meet both criteria.

by Jeff on Jun 3, 2008 12:53 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

It's one thing to draft for need

if you’re an NBA or NFL franchise. It’s moronic to do that in baseball, where it’s a 3-5 year window before a prospect is ready. That’s a lot of time to make other roster/org moves.

by BrianL on Jun 3, 2008 4:17 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I can easily see the Ms taking someone like Hunt

who profiles much more like a RP to me.

I desperately want, and they need, power corner bats but the good ones are almost certainly going to be gone come 20 so I’m betting they go with pitching. I’m also betting it’s going to be a raw arm with tons of velocity and projection and little in command or reliable secondary stuff.

by Matthew on Jun 3, 2008 1:01 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

And left-handed?

Or are we finally past that?

by Jeff on Jun 3, 2008 1:03 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

We prefer RH power throwers early in the draft

by Matthew on Jun 3, 2008 1:08 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I prefer middle infielders that can hit the crap out of the ball.

by JI on Jun 3, 2008 1:09 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

This is the deepest draft for the power corner bats in a long time

Sure, Smoak, Alonso and Wallace may be gone at 20, but there are still plenty out there – Davis, David Cooper from the college ranks, Zach Collier from HS. They can get that if they want, though even the second tier guys (who might’ve been first tier in another year) will be gone by the M’s 2nd round pick.

by marc w on Jun 3, 2008 1:13 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah but then you're more reaching based on need

and I dislike that though I’ll disagree with Jeff and say there are definitely areas (bullpen arms and up the middle players) that we don’t need compared to our insanely glaring lack of high ceiling starting pitchers and legit power bats.

by Matthew on Jun 3, 2008 1:17 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I don't consider bullpen arms a need for which teams can draft because drafting bullpen arms is stupid

by Jeff on Jun 3, 2008 1:22 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

You != Mariners FO

by Matthew on Jun 3, 2008 1:28 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

True

though the depth there means that you can argue with a straight face that drafting an Ike Davis is a better course of action than, say, a HS athlete. Esp. if all of Wallace, Lawrie, Hunt and Alonso are gone. The risk is much lower, and that’s a different argument than drafting for position.

by marc w on Jun 3, 2008 1:27 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Going on names alone

You gotta take Shooter Hunt 1st

Yonder Alonso sounds like he can hit the ball a long way

Ike is a good name for a hitter

and Jake Odorizzi provides a lot of good nickname possibilities
“you’ve just been Odorizzed”

Your favorite meme is dead

by Edanger6 on Jun 3, 2008 1:05 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Seriously...

is his name actually Shooter?

by pakipaki on Jun 3, 2008 2:47 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I doubt it.

I like midgets more than I should.

by Thingray on Jun 3, 2008 2:54 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Steven Daniel Hunt

nicknamed for the character in Hoosiers

by seattlebruin on Jun 3, 2008 3:23 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I was thinking Happy Gilmore

We don't negotiate with terrorists.

by Mariner John on Jun 3, 2008 4:51 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

If Alonso is still on the board at 20...

We have to take him.

I still don’t see it going down like that though.

"Ever tried? Ever failed? No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better." - Samuel Beckett http://mvn.com/milb-mariners/

by JY on Jun 3, 2008 1:28 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Yeah

but… wouldn’t that be nice?

I keep seeing him down in the 14-17 range in mock drafts, and with Hosmer moving up…

It’d still take a miracle, but there’s a guy like this every year w/top 5 talent who slides. Of course, usually that’s due to signability which isn’t the case here. But hey, we long-suffering M’s fans can dream, right?

by marc w on Jun 3, 2008 1:32 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

We can.

But then I tend to remember that we don’t exceed slot.

At least our fears about drafting a reliever in the first round haven’t been wholly justified the past couple of years.

"Ever tried? Ever failed? No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better." - Samuel Beckett http://mvn.com/milb-mariners/

by JY on Jun 3, 2008 1:39 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

You think Alonso wouldn't sign if he got slot at 20?

I guess it’s possible, but this isn’t a Porcello type of case here.

You thinking he could pull a JD Drew on us?

If the M’s somehow screwed THAT situation up…
Of course, I really don’t think Bavasi would do that to Fontaine.

by marc w on Jun 3, 2008 1:43 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'm not thinking about Alonso signing or not.

I’m thinking about Andrew Miller still being on the board as we select Brandon Morrow.

"Ever tried? Ever failed? No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better." - Samuel Beckett http://mvn.com/milb-mariners/

by JY on Jun 3, 2008 1:47 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Andrew Miller's rumored demands were outrageous

by Matthew on Jun 3, 2008 1:59 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

So were Porcello's

There just don’t seem to be those guys that wouldn’t sign purely due to money and drop to 20-30. Kelley could drop, and it’d take a lot to sign him, but I’m not worried about that at all.

The Miller situation was disappointing. I just don’t see that we could possibly be in a similar situation this time.

by marc w on Jun 3, 2008 2:03 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I just find it strange that the Miller situation happens once

And suddenly this franchise is regarded a team that refuses to pay over slot.

by Graham on Jun 3, 2008 2:05 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

It's not once.

It’s just the most visible example of something that has occurred for some time. The M’s aren’t the Mets as far as refusing to exceed slot goes, but they are considered to be one of the teams for which it’s a risk.

I’ll give them credit that they’re willing to pop fourth to sixth round talents around round eighteen every now and then, but if it’s a first to third round talent after the fourth or fifth round or so, the M’s are not the team I expect to take advantage of that kind of situation.

"Ever tried? Ever failed? No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better." - Samuel Beckett http://mvn.com/milb-mariners/

by JY on Jun 3, 2008 2:11 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Why?

by Graham on Jun 3, 2008 2:15 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

For whatever reason, they don't seem interested in crossing MLB HQ

they did it last year with Porcello, as alluded to above. They didn’t go above slot in 2003 to grab, say, Vince Sinisi (thankfully, as it turns out), they didn’t grab the tough signs in 2002 (Scott Kazmir, Jeff Baker), etc.
The only time they really went over slot was to grab Tui in the 3rd round, but that was in part due to the fact that they didn’t have a 1st or 2nd round pick.

by marc w on Jun 3, 2008 2:29 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Well, we've seen Bavasi's regime preside over 4 drafts now

Tui was paid over slot, Clement was paid over slot, but we haven’t seen any high end talents go that way to us in the past couple of years. Yeah, they don’t seen that interested in messing around with the commissioner’s office, but it’s not nearly the ‘MARINERS WILL NEVER DRAFT OVER SLOT’ situation that gets claimed around here sometimes.

by Graham on Jun 3, 2008 2:35 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

USS Mariner covered this at length two years ago with the Andrew Miller draft

If I remember correctly, Dave Cameron actually talked to members of the organization, who confirmed that the M’s could not consider players asking for more than marginally above slot because upper management did not want to go against Selig (with whom they have a close relationship).

Tui was before Selig started the crackdown (and the M’s had no first or second round picks that year), and Clement was not much above slot (and I think the M’s passed on Maybin in part because of his demands). The M’s passed on all the significantly above slot guys last year too.

The M’s-Selig alliance goes back to when the current owners bought the team, which Selig engineered against significant opposition through heavy arm twisting. The M’s have voted with Selig on just about every major issue.

by G_ on Jun 3, 2008 3:34 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Clement was roughly 1M above slot from what I can make out.

I know this team toes the line a lot but I’m just not seeing how to reconcile a stance that says they never go above slot when they have in the pretty recent past.

by Graham on Jun 3, 2008 4:11 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

See comment below

If you are using the 2007 slot recommendation as the basis for Clement being $1m above slot, MLB’s slot recommendations for 2007 were actually lower than 2006. If Clement was above slot (and I am not sure that he was), it was pretty marginal (maybe a couple $100K).

Selig’s concern was with team’s going well above slot, like Detroit with Miller who got millions above slot, not teams who were going over slot by 5%. Since Tui, the front office has made the substantially over slot guys off limits. With Selig backing off slotting this year, it might change.

by G_ on Jun 3, 2008 5:09 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

This is a fair enough point

I’m just not sure how it applies to the elite talents like Upton or Price – when a player is the clear top prospect in a draft he gets paid like it (and despite Andrew Miller being very, very good, he wasn’t nearly the lock for #1 the other two were), and I haven’t heard rumblings that Selig is particularly upset about the Rays giving Price $6m or whatever.

Detailed draft chat is a bit out of my depth though.

by Graham on Jun 3, 2008 5:14 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I don't get the sense that it's as big a deal

as Porcello, Samardzija, Jered Weaver, etc. The guys who get #1 overall money at pick 25 or something because some team goes way over slot.

I haven’t heard that Selig’s upset over the Upton or Price signings, but that makes more sense – the argument about teams with more money ‘buying’ the top draft picks later in the draft doesn’t apply.

But yes, this is rapidly heading out of my depth as well.

by marc w on Jun 3, 2008 5:18 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I don't think he would be mad about Samardzija though

because they had a legit reason to go over slot in that if no one was going to pay him, he’d just become a first round WR and make his millions that way

by seattlebruin on Jun 3, 2008 7:26 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

At the time, Miller was the consensus top prospect

According to BA from June 6, 2006, “North Carolina lefthander Andrew Miller is the consensus top talent in the draft.”

After his slotting strategy backfired last year, Selig essentially gave up enforcing it. Thus, he has not complained about Price.

by G_ on Jun 3, 2008 5:48 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

What does Selig give us?

http://web.minorleaguebaseball.com/milb/events/draft_report/y2008/index.jsp?mc=spruill

Cool name and face, so we must draft him.

by spittle8 on Jun 3, 2008 9:18 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Because we haven't seen them do it very often?

I’m not saying we’re the Astros, who only spent half a million in bonuses last year, or even the Mets. We’re just around the middle of the pack when the resources are available to do more.

The Red Sox, after round ten last year, had over a million in bonuses go to four guys, skewed a bit by 700k to one of them, and were willing to spend a quarter of a million more until a last minute change of heart by one of the picks. They grabbed a guy ranked as the 58th prep prospect by BA and gave him nearly a million to sign. The Yankees took the 47th ranked prep prospect in the tenth round and gave him a million. They also threw 1.3 million at the 49th ranked college player in the fourth round. Hell, the Orioles popped Jake Arrieta, a borderline first rounder, in round five and signed him for 1.1 million.

In ‘06, the Red Sox popped Ty Weeden (16th round, 196th out of 200, 420k) and Lars Anderson (18th round, 41st out of 200, 825k), the Yankees, while not doing much that would be considered major after ten, got Delin Betances (8th round, 68th out of 200, 1 million), Mark Melancon (9th round, 35 out of 200, 600K), and the Angels gave a million to Jordan Walden in round twelve.

The M’s, of that same time period? Well, they threw 160k at Colin Buckborough and 110k at Blake Trinkler after round ten in 2007, and in 2006, well, they got Gavin Dickey I guess.

I’m not saying the M’s NEVER exceed slot. They do, but they do it generally in an inoffensive way when they can, waiting to announce Aumont’s signing, for example. I’m not expecting them to keep up with the enormous market funding of New York, Boston, and LA, but we’ve had the money , which is more than most teams can say, we just don’t generally dip into top 200 prospects after round four or so if that.

"Ever tried? Ever failed? No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better." - Samuel Beckett http://mvn.com/milb-mariners/

by JY on Jun 3, 2008 2:48 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'm not sure we're really arguing here anyway

The Mariners don’t take full advantage of their financial reserves, but at the same time are not absolutely guaranteed to adhere rigidly to slots. Would you agree with that statement?

by Graham on Jun 3, 2008 3:06 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

For the most part, yes.

"Ever tried? Ever failed? No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better." - Samuel Beckett http://mvn.com/milb-mariners/

by JY on Jun 3, 2008 3:09 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

For the most part?

I’m confused.

by Matthew on Jun 3, 2008 3:10 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

It goes back to my earlier comment...

...about the M’s picking up fourth to sixth rounders in the teens or twenties. When they exceed slot, it’s generally to do a few minor things which, while beneficial, are not particularly game changing.

When I think about the fuss over teams exceeding slot, and how we typically regard that, it’s usually to get an impact talent far later than where they would have gone if all other factors were equal.

I would agree with the basics though, I’m really just hashing through semantics for lack of anything better to do.

"Ever tried? Ever failed? No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better." - Samuel Beckett http://mvn.com/milb-mariners/

by JY on Jun 3, 2008 3:15 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I would agree with that statement

but I still think the basic picture of a team that stays in or close to slot is the most accurate.
The Andrew Miller thing was the most visible, but not the only, example of this trait.

Would you agree with that statement?

by marc w on Jun 3, 2008 3:46 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yes

But I also think that they’re willing to bend their own rules if they really want somebody. A player’s bonus demands being high is a strike against them rather than a killer all on their own.

by Graham on Jun 3, 2008 4:13 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Out of curiousity

what are you seeing as the signing bonuses for 2005?
I’m not seeing Clement getting $1m over slot, but the data’s kinda sketchy.

It sort of depends on how you differentiate (or IF you differentiate) between the total value of the deal and whatever is clearly called out as a bonus.

From what I can see, Justin Upton got $4.7m, Gordon got $4, Clement got $3.4, Zimmerman got $2.975, Braun got $2.45 or so.

What do you have?

by marc w on Jun 3, 2008 4:36 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

$3.4 is what I have too

But $2.7 was the 3rd pick slot for 2007, according to BA, and assuming there’s a marginal increase every year that puts the 2005 3rd pick slot at something like $2.5

by Graham on Jun 3, 2008 4:44 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

In 2007, the slot recommendations went down

This was covered before last year’s draft.

by G_ on Jun 3, 2008 4:56 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I must have missed that

by Graham on Jun 3, 2008 5:04 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Hmmm...

but that’s not anything official is it? I mean, that’s BA’s estimate. Given the nice little curve those bonuses make, it seems hard to say that they gave $1m more than slot (if you give more than slot, you should get more than the guy taken just ahead of you, within reason).

Bonuses clearly came down recently; they got really out of hand in the late 90s, for example (Ryan Anderson’s bonus was higher than anyone until Clement, I believe).

by marc w on Jun 3, 2008 4:57 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Neither will I.

“You eat pieces of shit for breakfast?!?”

I like midgets more than I should.

by Thingray on Jun 3, 2008 3:37 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Hmm... drafting on name alone...

“The Pittsburgh Pirates select…. Mister Mxyzptlk”

"Ever tried? Ever failed? No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better." - Samuel Beckett http://mvn.com/milb-mariners/

by JY on Jun 3, 2008 3:32 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I would buy that jersey so fast you have no idea

by Nick S on Jun 3, 2008 6:03 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Ike is a rather decent pitcher as well

Brooks Kieschnick anyone? haha

by seattlesundevil on Jun 3, 2008 5:00 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Eh

As long as the M’s use their picks on players of use with decent upside, I’m cool with whatever they choose to do. I”m sure they’ll opt for the best player necessary. I’m not rooting for anyone in particular, since the difference in relative talent around the 15-25 slot generally isn’t strong enough to care about one way or another.

... though I agree that drafting relievers is stupid, since SPs can be converted to relievers (and that’s how many relievers start out anyway), but not really the other way around. Still, a good power reliever that can help the team within a year or two isn’t a terrible pick, and I wouldn’t necessarily raise hell over Cashner or Shooter.

by Gomez on Jun 3, 2008 5:38 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Drafting a reliever in the first round when the team is flush with relievers is a terrible pick.

by Matthew on Jun 3, 2008 5:41 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Still

I’d hope, if they did, that at least they do a good job with the other 49 picks.

by Gomez on Jun 3, 2008 5:54 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Wouldn't you hope that no matter what?

I’m really confused.

by Matthew on Jun 3, 2008 6:11 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

It's a 50 round draft

My point is I’m not gonna call it a disaster if they make a dubious 1st round pick.

by Gomez on Jun 3, 2008 6:33 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

1st round picks have a ridiculously higher rate of being contributors at the major league level

Compared to all other rounds.

by patsfan on Jun 3, 2008 6:46 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

But that's like far and away the most important pick

by Jeff on Jun 3, 2008 6:49 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

You go ahead and lead the procession of the bridge then

if they spend it on a reliever. Hopefully, they don’t make such a pointless pick.

by Gomez on Jun 3, 2008 7:25 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I hate having to use the word 'hope' so often with this team. Fuck them.

I fucking hate you Mariners

by kentroyals5 on Jun 4, 2008 8:25 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

But honestly

If I’m going to root for a particular pick, I’d be fairly happy with Brett Lawrie.

by Gomez on Jun 4, 2008 3:07 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Sounds good

5% chance he lasts to 20? Maybe less?

It’s so crazy that all of the sudden it seems that Alonso’s odds to stick to #20 are better than Lawrie’s. I’d take either.

by marc w on Jun 4, 2008 3:23 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

If Yonder drops, sure

But I’m still thinking he goes 10-15. He’s gauged as a slam dunk 1B/DH MLBer, and even given whatever concerns, someone’s going to want that power bat.

Lawrie at 20 might be a bit high but whatever. Kid’s got versatile raw skills.

by Gomez on Jun 4, 2008 3:50 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

A bit high?

I think he’s gone at 7, and almost certainly by 15. You think he’ll drop?

by marc w on Jun 5, 2008 8:44 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Man, this has been the least discussed draft that I can remember since I joined the blogosphere.

Only a half dozen mentions of it here, a few mentions at USSM. Hell even PI hasn’t talked about it that much, and they’re supposed to be a blog about prospects!

Weird.

I hate baseball.

by Goose on Jun 4, 2008 12:57 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Tough to get up for something like this when you don't have a top-ten pick

For me, anyway.

by Jeff on Jun 4, 2008 1:03 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Not to mention this draft class doesn't have any big-time, holy-shit prospects.

There’s not a Justin Upton or a Rick Porcello on the board, and even the writers covering the draft just don’t seem that excited.

by Teej on Jun 4, 2008 1:14 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Ever since I've been following the draft

I hear the same thing every year: this year’s draft is poor; there’s no impact players.

It’s weird – it’s like the 2000 draft cowed everyone into talking shit about the draft class. And with the emergence of Chase Utley and Adrian Gonzalez, it’s not like 2000 was the draft wasteland people make it out to be.

I don’t get this; the experts minimizing their field of expertise every year.

by marc w on Jun 4, 2008 8:37 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Um

Who the hell said that in 2005 or 2006?

The artist formerly known as Katal

by Katal LM on Jun 4, 2008 5:50 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

An AL scouting director

in this piece.

Happens all the time.

by marc w on Jun 5, 2008 8:47 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Wait for next years.......ooooh baby

I fucking hate you Mariners

by kentroyals5 on Jun 4, 2008 8:26 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I hear there's a pitcher from San Diego State in next year's draft who is supposed to be pretty good

Steven something

by seattlebruin on Jun 4, 2008 8:33 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

early rumbles are that 2009's class sucks

by Matthew on Jun 4, 2008 10:50 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Great.... here we go again

When’s the last time these ‘rumbles’ had GOOD things to say about a draft class?

A scout had this to say about the 2006 draft in the months leading up to June: “I would rate the ’06 draft class as definitely below average," he said. "The depth and diversity of the first round is not very good.”

That draft class has already produced Lincecum, Miller, Kershaw, Longoria, Snider, Kennedy, Chamberlain, Morrow, Scherzer and still includes some question marks from Hochevar/Reynolds to Hank Conger, etc.

Do they do this to give themselves an excuse if they screw up?

by marc w on Jun 4, 2008 12:52 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs