The 2009 Draft: Hopes, Fears, Expectations
Rumours abound today. Seattle's hold on Dustin Ackley at the #2 spot seems to have strengthened, mainly due to potential #2 Tyler Matzek going all crazy and coming out with an $7M+ signing bonus request. Matzek's not the only high schooler to be making surprising demands either, with Miller, Crow's also rumoured to be dropping low, but he's good enough that some team will pounce on him early, even if they're not linked to him.
With that in mind, here are my best, expected, and worst case scenarios (that aren't massively unrealistic) for our first and supplemental round picks this afternoon:
Hopes
#2: Dustin Ackley, CF (UNC)
#27: Kyle Gibson, RHP (Missouri)
#33: Nick Franklin, SS (Lake Brantley High School, Florida)
Drafting Ackley is a no brainer. Gibson relies on his forearm injury spooking clubs enough for him to fall to #27, and taking him gives us one of the top college pitchers in the draft, one who could feasibly be ready for the major leagues by 2011. Unfortunately, he's probably gone by the time we make that pick. As for his injury - no, I'm not too bothered. Soft tissue damage is what's scary in a pitcher. A forearm stress fracture is nothing to be sneezed at, of course, but he should be healthy and throwing at full strength come August and as long as he doesn't get abused like he did in Missouri I don't see it as a huge problem. At #33, we overdraft Nick Franklin by a round or so. Franklin, who could potentially be a switch hitting shortstop with a clue at the plate gets taken instead of Baron here because Gibson probably commands less money than Purke/Scheppers, etc. At least, that's the hope.
Fears
#2: Aaron Crow, RHP (Fort Worth Cats)
#27: Tanner Scheppers, RHP (St. Pauli Saints)
#33: Brett Jackson, CF (California)
We're not locks for Ackley. Other names I've heard associated with #2 are Tyler Matzek and Aaron Crow, and if we pass on Ackley it would be for signability reasons, which takes Matzek out of that race. Would Crow, one of the best pitchers available today, be a bad guy to have in the system? Of course not. But I don't think I could forgive this team for passing on Dustin Ackley. If that pick gets announced, it's 50/50 that I just kill myself. Scheppers could drop to #27, and unlike Crow he is a guy I don't want anywhere near my system. If you'll scroll up a little to where I talk about Gibson's injury, you'll see that soft tissue injury is what scares me. And the scariest soft tissue injury? Shoulder problems! His stuff is great, but drafting Tanner Scheppers is just asking for trouble. Brett Jackson at #33 (using the money saved by taking Crow over Ackley) partially redeems the draft by giving us a plus plus centrefielder with huge pop, but unlike our friend Dustin Ackley he's not good at making contact and doesn't have a great grasp of the strike zone. This would be a massively disappointing draft, considering our situation.
Expectations
#2: Dustin Ackley, CF (UNC)
#27: Tanner Scheppers, RHP (St. Pauli Saints)
#33: Stephen Baron, C (Ferguson HS, Florida)
I've spoken about Ackley and Scheppers (who I put here simply instead of Paxton or Purke, who are both viable targets, simply as a sop to my rampant pessimism) already, so let's talk about why the Mariners take Baron, a massive overdraft, in the #33 spot. Basically, it's to be able to afford Scheppers. Each team has a finite amount of money that they can spend over the 50 rounds of the draft. Obviously, signing bonuses will be concentrated at the top, but mid-late round picks aren't exactly free. So if you go over slot somewhere you have to cut back elsewhere. Baron, on talent alone, is a third rounder, but the Mariners love their defensive catchers and are willing to draft him in the supplemental round for well-below slot money in order to go over slot at #27. His bat has questions, but Dave Cameron told me to think of a Pitcher/Baron package as trading the #27 and #33 for the #10 and #70 slots in the draft, and that seems reasonable. So yeah, this is how I'd still expect things to play out this afternoon. Hopefully Scheppers is off the board by #27 though.
0 recs |
90 comments
|
Comments
Excuse my ignorance, but can we get an explanation on what it means to "go over slot"?
I think I have the general idea, but a simple clarification would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks, Graham.
by Wilder. on Jun 9, 2009 8:46 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Sure
Basically what happens is that the commissioner’s office tells clubs that each pick is worth a certain amount of money. I’m not going to grab the full list for you because that would take a lot of time to type, but it pretty much starts at a few million for the #1 pick and drops steadily from there.
Going over slot means paying more than the baseline set by Selig – something that’s expected at the top end of the draft but after the first ten picks or so means that teams defying the commissioner’s office can draft guys who can’t be had for ‘slot money’ at their position in the draft. A great example here is what Detroit did with Rick Porcello a couple of years ago.
by Graham on Jun 9, 2009 8:51 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Is Selig's list an estimate of what is expected?
Or are you saying that each team’s amount to be spent in the draft is set by the commissioner?
Bye, Jeffie!
Preserved In All His Greatness - R.I.P. The Reignman 1989 to 1997
by JLProck on Jun 9, 2009 8:54 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
No and no.
It’s mostly a pipedream of the CO’s office to try and limit bonuses.
by Matthew on Jun 9, 2009 8:56 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
And the teams which follow that list tend to get screwed by the teams that don't
by Graham on Jun 9, 2009 8:56 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Got it. Thanks.
Bye, Jeffie!
Preserved In All His Greatness - R.I.P. The Reignman 1989 to 1997
by JLProck on Jun 9, 2009 8:59 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Is there any chance MLB would move to an NBA-like slot system
and what effect would that have on the draft?
by Poochie on Jun 9, 2009 9:32 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I thought the MLBPA was only out to help players who hit free agency
by Poochie on Jun 9, 2009 9:43 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The MLBPA is out to help players, generally.
This does not mean they’re out to help all players. Their goal appears to be to maximise the amount of money flowing from the owners to the players, regardless of distribution.
The owners, of course, seek to minimise the amount of money flowing from the owners to the players, so there’s a necessary conflict there. As such, each side has an incentive to oppose absolutely everything the other side wants in order to seek concessions on some other issue. I argued extensively that the MLBPA should have opposed drug testing to try to get MLB to give them something in return.
I like using semi-colons; they make me feel smart.
by Llewdor on Jun 9, 2009 9:55 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Gammons said yesterday that he thinks that the union will fight it but eventually give in in 2011.
by Robert on Jun 9, 2009 10:07 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think they would have a hard time with that one in court
given that amateur/minor league players are not in the union. If it were the professional baseball players union maybe, but MLBPA would have a hard time arguing for standing.
"Even the stupidest of men, by some instinct of nature, is convinced on his own that with more observations his risk of failure is diminished."
-Jacques Bernoulli Ars conjectandi 1713
by Bearskin Rugburn on Jun 9, 2009 10:22 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Estimate
there’s no penalty for not obeying it either, unless you consider your minor league system getting really good to be a “penalty”
by seattlebruin on Jun 9, 2009 8:56 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Thanks again, Graham.
This is what I figured. It is crazy to think teams pass on BPA because they will likely have to pay over slot and then fall down the draft and the paying over slot becomes even greater. Pretty ridiculous how that works.
Are the teams trying to stick within their budgets to blame for this phenomenon?
by Wilder. on Jun 9, 2009 9:04 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It's more MLB trying to stop bonuses from getting out of hand than anything else
Helps budgets too, though
by Graham on Jun 9, 2009 9:06 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Draft writeup
Thanks for the pre draft writeup. I’m thinking for me’s it more 95/5 that I’ll shoot myself if we pass on Ackley. I’m going to be so disappointed if we pass on him.
by sodomojo on Jun 9, 2009 8:54 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Check out the production from Graham!
How much concern is there about pitchers like Scheppers and Crow having stagnated in independent leagues for a year, getting suboptimal coaching and adding ‘unproductive’ wear to their arms? There seems to be a consensus that Hochevar kinda sucks for this reason.
"Even the stupidest of men, by some instinct of nature, is convinced on his own that with more observations his risk of failure is diminished."
-Jacques Bernoulli Ars conjectandi 1713
by Bearskin Rugburn on Jun 9, 2009 9:11 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I'm not worried. Talent is talent
I think the reason Hochevar isn’t that good is because he just wasn’t that good to begin with. I doubt that spending 2 months starting for an indy-league club takes away your ability to pitch.
by Graham on Jun 9, 2009 9:13 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
But it's a year overall
Young athletes don’t seem to realize how quickly you can lose your optimal form and how difficult it is to regain. I suspect that is part of what happened with Hochevar… but it’s just speculation.
"Even the stupidest of men, by some instinct of nature, is convinced on his own that with more observations his risk of failure is diminished."
-Jacques Bernoulli Ars conjectandi 1713
by Bearskin Rugburn on Jun 9, 2009 9:15 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think that's why pitchers showcase themselves in the indies, though
It’s to show that they still have their stuff, are still in shape, etc
by Graham on Jun 9, 2009 9:16 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Scheppers has apparently fully recovered from injury then
His velo was the same as at his peak according to reports I’ve seem, and with the shoulder that’s what you’re worried about most, no? or are you concerned it’s something chronic?
"Even the stupidest of men, by some instinct of nature, is convinced on his own that with more observations his risk of failure is diminished."
-Jacques Bernoulli Ars conjectandi 1713
by Bearskin Rugburn on Jun 9, 2009 9:32 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Like I said in a previous thread
I don’t care if Scheppers is supposedly healthy now, I consider him an injury risk in the future. He hurt his shoulder pitching, therefore pitching the way he does probably will continue to hurt his shoulder.
by Graham on Jun 9, 2009 9:34 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hopes
2. Dustin Ackley
27. Matthew Purke
33. Nick Franklin
by seattlebruin on Jun 9, 2009 9:13 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
That is my second choice hopes list too
Gibson is much closer to being major league ready and thus a safer pick, however
by Graham on Jun 9, 2009 9:13 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Gibson got scary recently.
I know Dave wouldn’t agree, but I’m starting to think elite HS arms aren’t much more of a crapshoot than the second tier college guys. We’ve all seen college control/command guys struggle in the minors while the Bumgarners/Aldersons/Parkers of the world zoom by. Do you think the relative risk is changing at all (due to better scouting? Better mgmt of pitcher health? something else?), or was the 2006/07 drafts just a blip – a meaningless increase in the # of HS arms who made good (but still haven’t made the majors, by and large)?
I guess what I’m saying is that I would want Purke for leftiness and potential #1-ness, but bonus demands make it basically impossible. If Gibson were 100% healthy, then yeah, give the nod to the college arm, but I’m just not sure how to think of the risk of HS/College arms anymore.
by marc w on Jun 9, 2009 9:32 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think I gave the impression that I'm much higher on Gibson than Purke
I’m not. The difference to me really is that I expect Gibson to be able to play on a 2011 team whereas Purke probably comes up a year later, and costs twice as much money to sign.
Either one and I’m doing happy dances though.
by Graham on Jun 9, 2009 9:35 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Please don't make such a suggestion
thanksheartsbye
NOLA
by NOLAmarinergirl on Jun 9, 2009 9:38 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
No, I know WHY you'd pick Gibson
I’m just curious if you think the relative risk of HS arms vs. college has changed at all?
Obviously the college arm is closer to the majors, and a ton of HS arms have flamed out. But it just seems that teams have gotten burned in the past few years thinking that a specific type of college arm is extremely low risk, while HS arms are extremely high risk. And I think that’s changed, to some degree. Not sure if it would be enough to alter my pick at 27 if I was in McNamara’s shoes, and in this specific case it’s more about the $$$ than risk, but I just wonder if this’ll be another year where the HS arms out-perform the ‘safe’ college arms (with one big exception, of course).
by marc w on Jun 9, 2009 9:40 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Little bit of both
‘Safe’ college arms don’t appear to be as safe as college arms with great stuff, so that knocks them down a little, and I think teams are getting better at handling high school guys. I also think that the last couple of years have exaggerated the trend towards equality of college vs high school pitching. This could well be the year the college guys wipe the floor with the high school guys, or it could be the other way around. Hard to say!
by Graham on Jun 9, 2009 9:43 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Since you stuck Scheppers in there twice
rather than talking about Purke or Paxton, I’d be interested to get your take on those two guys.
And is it just me, or is Churchill dead-set against the M’s taking Ackley? I find his take on this puzzling.
by The Ancient Mariner on Jun 9, 2009 9:21 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I like Purke more than Paxton, but they'd both be pretty sweet picks
Purke’s got better stuff – great fastball, wonderful breaking stuff – but he’s obviously further away and would take more money to sign. Paxton is pretty strange for a college pitcher in that he has a lot of projectability left in him – he’s much rawer than you expect for a guy coming out of college. I also am fond of him because he’s a guy from BC. Either pick is good, though.
by Graham on Jun 9, 2009 9:25 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It's just you.
Churchill is NOT against the M’s taking Ackley.
This signature space for rent.
by PositivePaul on Jun 9, 2009 10:32 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Guarantees that they take him, or that they won't?
This signature space for rent.
by PositivePaul on Jun 9, 2009 11:26 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think he was asking an honest question looking for clarity.
by Sec 108 on Jun 9, 2009 12:21 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
There's nothing to clarify.
It’s a joke.
by Matthew on Jun 9, 2009 1:09 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Must've missed the inside joke...
This signature space for rent.
by PositivePaul on Jun 9, 2009 12:58 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm on a train to Seattle at 3pm today
Please let there be an intact city to come home to rather than a city beset by rioting LLers
by NOLAmarinergirl on Jun 9, 2009 9:42 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I think there's a better best-case scenario that's fairly realistic IMO
2. Stephen Strasburg
27. Dustin Ackley
33. Bryce Harper & Tim Lincecum (package pick)
by Fett42 on Jun 9, 2009 9:44 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I would be so upset if they pass on Pujols at #27 for Ackley
by seattlebruin on Jun 9, 2009 9:45 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Pujols was passed by something like 300 times so I bet there's a lot of people who are upset.
by Poochie on Jun 9, 2009 9:46 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Whatever happened to that Cardinals scout-a-player promotion last year
did they end up drafting one of the guys?
by seattlebruin on Jun 9, 2009 9:48 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Random tidbit from Keith Law
seems to think Alex White/Mike Minor are going to go 7/8 to Atlanta and Cinci, which takes away potential Purke/Scheppers/Crow landing zones, meaning one could fall to us
by seattlebruin on Jun 9, 2009 9:46 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I'm not holding my breath on Crow, but if he's there at 27...
by seattlebruin on Jun 9, 2009 9:54 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I like how Law has the M's taking Drew Storen in his mock draft at #27.
THAT would be the end of most of LL.
by abender20 on Jun 9, 2009 9:58 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I hope you're wrong and think you're right
but I can’t help but be optimistic if the Braves and Reds like White and Minor
by seattlebruin on Jun 9, 2009 10:02 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Also from that same Law blurb,
Washington was previously on Minor for the No. 10 pick, but if he’s off the board, expect them to select Stanford reliever Drew Storen instead.
Teehee.
by abender20 on Jun 9, 2009 9:55 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
They're getting Strasburg. They owe it to us to take the college closer off the board so we can't pick him.
by Decatur on Jun 9, 2009 10:13 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The people that drafted closers in the first round have long since been fired
by Robert on Jun 9, 2009 10:29 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
A number of outlets, including Baseball America and ESPN, have reported M's interest in Storen, and I've seen several mock drafts (ESPN's I think) with Storen going to the M's at 27.
I’m genuinely worried they might take him – even if they try to make him a starter (which several clubs are thinking of), I still wouldn’t like it.
by Decatur on Jun 9, 2009 10:42 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
They're blowing their draft budget on SAS
"Even the stupidest of men, by some instinct of nature, is convinced on his own that with more observations his risk of failure is diminished."
-Jacques Bernoulli Ars conjectandi 1713
by Bearskin Rugburn on Jun 9, 2009 10:24 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Law now reporting that Tony Sanchez will go 4th to Pittsburgh
also that the M’s minds may be made up on Ackley, and that Storen could fall to the bottom of the first round (please no)
by seattlebruin on Jun 9, 2009 12:32 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Storen can fall as far as he wants, as long as he isn't a replacement pick for an actual starter.
by abender20 on Jun 9, 2009 12:40 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I do not want to draft anything close to an actual reliever in the first round
pass pass pass pass pass
by seattlebruin on Jun 9, 2009 12:47 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hey guys I heard that the Nationals have a thing for outfielders
so it’s totally likely they’re just gonna take Ackley at #1. You’ll be stuck with Strasburg as the consolation prize.
angels fan in seattle
by Eyebrows on Jun 9, 2009 9:55 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
God dammit this is the worst day ever
just one piece of bad news after another
by seattlebruin on Jun 9, 2009 9:56 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Wait. Kenny Williams drafted his own kid in the sixth round last year?
and he sucks? whoops.
by seattlebruin on Jun 9, 2009 10:50 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Keith Law is about to start a chat for insiders at ESPN.com
if anyone wants to join. I’ll repeat interesting tidbits I see over here as well
by seattlebruin on Jun 9, 2009 11:00 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Law says the M's have a zero chance of passing Ackley
by seattlebruin on Jun 9, 2009 11:20 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Buhhhhh
James (Highlands, NJ)
where do you see Kyle Gibson going now? does he fall out of the first round?
Keith Law
Doctor’s decision for a number of clubs. I wouldn’t be shocked to see someone like the Red Sox bang him at 28 if he’s there.
by seattlebruin on Jun 9, 2009 11:27 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Tee hee
bang him.
Paris Hilton, Burberry plaid, reality TV, mullets, Zima, Dubya, and the Sonics being sold to Oklahoma City. - Yahoo Answer results for "7 Signs of the Apocalypse"
by bluemax on Jun 9, 2009 11:29 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Bang is and has never been any type of synonym for "pick."
by Zwakamatsu on Jun 9, 2009 11:31 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
but it is a typo for a fast typer trying to write "bag"
Nice Guys Finish Third - My semantics are a waste of time.
by pdb on Jun 9, 2009 11:33 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It's used in sports gambling
I think it’s mostly an East-Coast term.
by waldo rojas on Jun 9, 2009 11:42 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It very much is.
Big time gambling term.
by Matthew on Jun 9, 2009 12:14 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
If SBN keeps logging me out come 3PM I am going to be very peeved
by Graham on Jun 9, 2009 11:50 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Been drinking for the past hour.
3pm cannot come soon enough. Yes yes yes.
by katal on Jun 9, 2009 12:12 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

by 














