2007 Draft Class

[Outshined_One]

Honestly, I think the sample size for pitchers taken in the top 5 since 1990 is too small of a sample size to really make that kind of judgment.

 

Most importantly the best pitching prospect in the draft rarely goes in the top 5 it seems.

 

Andrew Miller

Jered Weaver

etc

[craig]

It sounds as if you're arguing that no one should take a pitcher because they're stuff deteriorates.

 

I knew it would sound like that, but that isn't what I meant to say. My argument is that pitchers' stuff usually deteriorates. Whether that's reason to not draft them is a separate question. It's a consideration that impacts risk; hitters have their own considerations that impact their risks.

 

What I *am* saying is that the majority of high-pick pitchers have their stuff deteriorate, substantially, within a limited number of years. Many before they ever achieve any big-league success, many more within a few years in the majors. When you draft a pitcher with exceptional stuff really high, the odds are small that he'll be able to sustain the exceptional stuff over an extended number of years. That's just the way it is with pitchers.

 

If you get it right with both a hitter and a pitcher, I think it's much more common for the player to be able to sustain success over an extended period than for the pitcher. You may scout smart and strike gold with your pitcher, as the Cubs did with Wood and Prior. But even the golden pitcher's stuff is likely to deteriorate. You may scout dumb and not recognize fatal flaws with a player (Corey, harvey, Montanez), plenty of risk. But if you do scout smart and draft a player who's golden, it's much more likely that he'll be able to sustain success over a long period of years. (Heh, no Cub examples, because the Cubs haven't scouted smart with a 1st-round hitter since Palmeiro.... It isn't easy.)

 

I'm not arguing that it may not be worth it to spend a high pick on a pitcher who gives you 3-4 years of excellence. If Wood, Prior, or Mulder never post another winning or sub-4 season, it might be argued that they should be retroviewed as success picks, not disappointment picks. 3-4 years of outstanding service is more than you get out of most picks, even top-5 picks. If you knew you'd get 4 years of excellence from Price, and after that he'd deteriorate to a #3-4 starter or worse, would that mean you'd pass? Not necessarily.

 

Even if the odds are large that a guy's stuff will deteriorate, as I'm claiming, sometimes you hit on a Roger Clemens or Randy Johnson whose stuff doesn't. Perhaps it's worth spending your pick on the outside chance that Price or whomever is the guy whose stuff holds up for years? (Just don't blame luck or curses or scouting director or pitching coaches if the guy's stuff does deteriorate, as was probable from the beginning...)

 

Drafting players has high risks, too. They are just different sorts of risks. Hitters are much harder to scout/project. In a single scouting session you can see that 95 mph is 95 mph; a curve can be seen as sharp in one HS game or one bullpen demo, you dont need to face a big-league hitter to show that. But it's much harder to project how a hitter will handle bigleague sliders and moving fastballs and strike/ball recognition based on how he does against a coach in batting practice, or against HS pitching, or in a small sample of AB's. Recognizing/projecting exceptional hitters is much harder than recognizing/projecting pitchers with exceptional stuff.

 

Projecting a player's future defense is also much tougher than scouting a pitcher. A player's speed and defensive range and flexibility will routinely deteriorate in time. Five or eight years out, will Wieters still be a catcher, or will he have deteriorated to a LF? 3B? 1B? Or DH? Rundle is playing CF right now for Mesa, and at present (6'4", 180) he's got good range. But at present, he doesn't have much power either. By age 25, will he put on muscle so that he's 220 instead of 180? Perhaps so, and perhaps by then he'll be a plus power hitter. But what will that building up do to his legs and to his arm? Will he still be a CF? Will his arm get stronger and he'll be fine for RF? Or by then will be strictly a LF/DH/1B? Who knows.

[craig]

By the way, I'm not saying it's just luck, or that it's not worth getting excited about certain players or getting one's heart set on one or another. It's fun. And there is a lot of good analysis that can and must enter in.

 

I do admit (despite my denials that I was arguing against drafting a premium pitcher) that normally, the odds of hitting on a good player with a top-five pick are better than the odds of hitting on a good pitcher who stays good for very long. And that the odds of getting a good guy who is still good 5+ years out is definitely higher with player than pitcher.

 

I also admit that I hope that, when it comes down to cases, the best player available is a position player. I'd prefer that, because if a player scouts well enough to be viewed as BPA at #3 or #4 in a strong, deep draft, that player will be a big talent. If it's a pick that works, he could pay off for 10+ years. Heh, it would also be my preference that the BPA player would have already proved himself in college, with not a flaw in sight.

 

But I also realize full well that every year is different. The best player may not be nearly as attractive as the best pitcher. And if the pitcher is good enough, I'll be plenty excited and hopeful. [/img]

[Mephistopheles]

Well look at what the Cubs drafting strategy has been the last few years, pitching and tough signs. Price will find himself in that category. Personally I am a believer that starting pitching wins championships, maybe not divisions.

 

No one's saying Price is a sure thing, but he could be the surest thing in the draft and the surest pitcher since Prior. The Cubs inability to develop hitters actually wants me NOT to draft them because they'll xxxx them up. Not only that on the free agent market pitchers are overpaid a lot more than hitters. Secondly young pitching prospects are much more valuable in the trade market. For a team who has a big budget and several high end arms in their system, it's a good strategy. Of course keeping them healthy is another thing.

 

The Cubs can get a decent offense through trades and signings, but how many teams have built a good pitching staff through signings? The Astros - sort of. New York did it a bit in the late 90s but still had key guys from the system. Also, pitching over the course of the season is about 52% of a teams success, if you believe Bill James' regressions. A top flight starter and a top flight hitter usually have a WARP in the 10.0 range and are similar in VORP etc. However, in the postseason where a teams better pitchers pitch in a higher percentage of their teams' innings than they do in the regular season, prorated to 162 games it would be like a 18 WARP for top flight SPs and still a 10 WARP for hitters because they still receive roughly the same percentage of the team's plate appearances.

 

Since i believe in a strategy like this, David Price or any top flight pitcher is a good move, unless there is a cant mess up PURE HITTER not the BS toolsy ones we normally get.

[craig]

A top flight starter and a top flight hitter usually have a WARP in the 10.0 range and are similar in VORP etc..

 

I am too poor to pay for any of the dollar stuff, so I'm not up on everything. But I found this statement surprising. I haven't tracked WARP, but I have tracked VORP for a while. And I see VORP giving a different picture.

 

VORP consistently has the high end weighted by position players. of the top 20 or so VORP guys per year, typically a shade under 40% are pitchers..

 

I did a check for guys with VORP's over 60 in the 2000's (player:pitcher):

2005: 13:8

2004 17:8

2003 13:9

2002 18:9

2001 24:10

2000 26:8

For this year, VORP over 50: 11:3

 

For the real high-end VORP's: This millenium, Pedro (116.7, 2000) and Randy Johnson (90.8, 2001) are the only pitchers to VORP over 90. Over that same span, 17 hitter seasons have. Over the last four years, the average high for a pitcher has been 83; for a hitter 94. So, again, at the very top end, VORP favors hitters.

 

In terms of winning during the season. Your point that a top pitcher is more useful during the playoffs than during the season is well taken.

 

One other VORP observation in skimming these seasons. I observe much consistency in the players who are annual VORP studs han with pitchers. Pujols, Bonds, Giles, ARod, Manny Ramirez, during the early 2000's Sammy.... there is a lot of repetition. In the pitchers, there are also regulars. But there are a lot who pop in, than fall off the earth. Chan Park, Joe Mays, Esteban Loiza (he was the leader one year!), Mark Prior, Livan Hernandez. Again, it's the injury thing, I think.

 

Again, this is why I think that if you draft a hitter who VORP's at 65 at age 24, he'll likely be a big VORP asset when he's 27, 31, and 33. Whereas if you draft a pitcher who flashes a 65 VORP at age 24, the odds that he's still a VORP ace at 27 is modest, and very small that he'll still be a VORP ace at 31 and 33.

 

I think your point is also well taken that pitching is a flexible commodity. There is *always* market for pitching. The cost for pitching is always excessive. If you somewhat accumulate a surplus of pitching, you can always trade it. I'm not sure that premium players are traded anymore often than are premium pitchers, and on both sides it's mostly money. Marlins won 1st with all outside pitchers picked up. marlins won 2nd with Willis, Pavano, Redmon all outside guys, only Beckett drafted. Braves had Smoltz and maddux as outside pickups. Twins Viola and Blyleven, outside. Buehrle was the only system Sox guy, I think. If anything, I think that pitchers are so much more unpredictable that they are easier to pick up. Phillies picked up schiling on his 3rd or 4th org. Randy Johnson moved teams. Pedro got traded. Dontrelle got traded. Cris Carpenter comes off the scrap pile. etc..

 

But since everybody uses so many pitchers, if you have them to spare, you can find a buyer. If you have a surplus 1B, there may be only one or three teams with an appetite. How many teams need a 3B at any point in time? Since each team needs only one, the market is normally small. Pitchers, always a broad market.

 

That said, MacP has often espoused your theory: go after pitchers, get surplus, trade for players. I would suggest that in the Cub case, it hasn't really functioned. Pierre is the only real player that they've acquired for value pitching. Aram, Bobby Hill was the key prospect. Lee, Choi. Only the pierre pickup has come at the price of young pitching. Sure, we've traded pitching (Dontrelle) for pitching (Clement, Alf), or Garland for Karchner.

 

I'm not saying it can't or shouldn't work. Just that it hasn't. Because pitching prospects are so fragile! If Brownlie and Sisco and hagerty and Clanton and Petrick and Blasko and Johnson and Ryu and Krawiec and Jones had all stayed healthy, we'd have had enough surplus of pitching so that we could trade for guys who profiled better than Burnitz or Hollandsworth or Hairston or Jones. But we didn't. Instead we've still been pitching short, and have chosen to go outside for Dempster, Howry, Eyre, Maddux, Estes, hawkins, and Remlinger.

 

I'm not saying the Cubs won't or shouldn't take Price. Only that if they do, the odds that he'll probably deteriorate sooner or later, and probably not all that many years later. But, it's a matter of what alternatives there are. A HS hitter brings tons of concerns, too, especially in the Cub system.

 

Obviously if Price or some other fragile pitcher looks great, the only way they'll choose a player is if he too looks great.

 

If the premise is that a hitter will bust (cubs wills crew him up or mis-scout him) while the pitcher will be an immediate stud, well, OK! Not much to discuss there.

 

But if there is a top-flight player, who you scout smart and who ends up being a top-flight player, that would pay huge dividends for the Cubs. Probably longer than a smart-scouted top-flight pitcher.

 

But it may be that it just isn't possible to have the same scouting confidence about a hitter that you do for the pitcher. In which case I can well understand the logic in taking the can't-miss pitcher, and ride him for however long his stuff stays exceptional. I'm just saying that if undesirably you are unable to draft Price, and instead are forced to take a super talented but not-quite-so-certain player, and ***IF**** he turns out to be a top-flight guy, then in the long run you probably won't regret it.

Edited August 9, 2006 by craig

[Guest]

I think your point is well-made, Craig. If you've got a choice of a pitcher who rates as an 80 or a hitter that's at 65, take the pitcher and hope he is the exception that stays healthy and doesn't lose his stuff. But if you've got a pitcher who is an 80 and a hitter that is, say, a 75...it is probably more profitable use of resources to take the hitter.

[craig]

Cubs have now moved into the #5 spot on the draft board, up into 26th place. One game down on Washington for 25th place, although the Cubs have the draft tiebreaker with Washington.

 

3 games out of 24th place and the 7th pick in the draft.

 

But way different from last year, when protected pick was at stake. For a while, one game looked like the difference between picking maybe 13th, 14th, or 15th versus picking 113th.

 

3rd vs 5th vs 7th will matter, but it doesn't seem as dramatic.

[the splendid splinter]

Yes the Cubs just passed those brainmasters in Cleveland. I thought Cleveland was a slam dunk to be in the playoffs this yr and they had such the brainpower in the front office?

[Mephistopheles]

Baseball America did an article on Michael Main.

 

But none was as impressive as Main. During one sequence he delivered fastballs at 97 mph, 97, 96, 96, 94, 96, 94 and 95. When he showed some feel for his 79 mph changeup and 74-77 mph breaking ball, there was little question who had claimed the title as the top rising senior pitching prospect.

 

BA also did a little scouting report on all the players for this weekends Aflac Game.

[craig]

The other day we were discussing high-draft pitchers with franchise potential. Justin Verlander was one of the few who hadn't had his arm deteriote (yet), a poster boy for the value of going after pitchers.

 

Now the word is that he's got "dead arm".

 

Lots of pitchers do, and bounce back just fine. For others, of course, "dead arm" is not "normal" and is the precursor to deterioration of the stuff that made them look so attractive. We'll see with Verlander. But his deterioration may already have begun.

 

Along with Verlander, the Twins' Liriano has been the other example of a kid pitcher who's absolutely unbelievable, and who has elevated his team into the playoff mix. A month ago, Verlander and Liriano might have been among the top 3-5 players in all of baseball that I'd want if I could start a team.

 

But Liriano now has some elbow problems. I was listening to the Twins braodcasters talking yesterday, and they were commenting (who knows if they knew anything...) that Verlander's problem sounds worse than Liriano's. But it's a question if/when Liriano will be back in the rotation, if at all this year. May be a brief, tempporary setback, and once back he'll be as good as ever. But I wouldn't be surprised if the deterioration has begun, and we'll never see Liriano quite as unbelievable as he's been this summer.

[CaliforniaRaisin]

With some rotator cuff problems this summer (to go along with the theme of the thread right now), BA says Robert Stock has been primarily working as a catcher. He's definitely looked good hitting and shows potential defensively.

 

He'll be back on the mound soon enough, Team USA thinks of him as a two-way player.

[seattlecub]

of the 6 pitches i saw in the top of the 5th of the aflac game, stock dropped the first 5

[Mephistopheles]

Stock started on the mound for the West in the Aflac game. He sat at 92-93 most of his inning hitting 94 once and 95 once.

[CaliforniaRaisin]

Stock started on the mound for the West in the Aflac game. He sat at 92-93 most of his inning hitting 94 once and 95 once.

 

Not bad...

[Mephistopheles]

Stock just hit a bomb off Porcello, 94 MPH cheese.

[CaliforniaRaisin]

Stock is awesome. :D

 

Most of you have probably seen this already, but oh well:

 

Alex (Cotuit, MA): Jim, have you been following the Cape Cod Baseball league? Who are the best prospects coming out of the league?

 

SportsNation Jim Callis: (2:36 PM ET ) I have been, working on my annual Top 30 Prospects list for the Cape. I still want to talk to a few more scouts, but right now South Carolina first baseman Justin Smoak and Georgia Tech catcher Matt Wieters are running neck and neck for the No. 1 spot. North Carolina State righthander Andrew Brackman and Georgia righthander Josh Fields are the top pitchers. Incidentally, two classic games to open the playoffs, a 1-0 contest and a 13-inning thriller.

 

Paul (KC): Local media keeps stating that the Royals will have the top pick next year, but isn't it still alternating? In any event, who is the early favorite for the top spot?

 

SportsNation Jim Callis: (2:43 PM ET ) No, it's the overall worst record in baseball, so the Royals can have the No. 1 pick back to back. Vanderbilt LHP David Price and Georgia Tech C/RHP Matt Wieters are probably the favorites to go No. 1 at this point.

[Mephistopheles]

I have been most impressed with Blair Beavan thus far. Jake Peavy part II

[KingKongvs.Godzilla]

Will they re-air the AFLAC game because I've missed it (yet again).

 

Who were the most impressive prospects there? How did Main and Stock look?

 

Any HS leftys out there that can go high?

 

Any HS position players (particularly SS and CF) who are both somewhat polished and still have high upsides?

[Mephistopheles]

Will they re-air the AFLAC game because I've missed it (yet again).

 

Probably sometime, but it'll likely be at like 2 in the morning or something. They actually cut out the last two frames of the game because it ran over the 3 hours it was slotted for. That kind of bummed me out because I wanted to see Erik Goeddel and Josh Smoker throw.

 

Who were the most impressive prospects there? How did Main and Stock look?

 

Main did not throw the ball well. He did his Chicago Cubs routine as he threw over FIFTY pitches in his inning of work. Thirteen of those pitches were 94 MPH or higher. He sat at 94 at the beginning of the inning before tiring down, throwing 91-92 the last 10 or so pitches. He had no command of his fastball nor consistency on his mid 70s breaking ball.

 

Robert Stock was impressive with the bat and ball. He homered in his first PA off Rick Porcello and a 94 MPH fastball. His fastball sat 92-94 in his inning of work, touching 95. He struck out Tolisano, Morris and Burgess. He walked Justin Jackson and allowed singles to Danny Rams and Jason Heyward. He looked pretty good.

 

I was most impressed with Blake Beavan. Of course he like Kerry Wood is from Irving, but he's a lot different. His arm action and motion are very similar to Jake Peavy as he throws low three quarters. He sat 92-94 with a heavy sinking fastball similar to Peavy's. He also threw a hard slider in the low 80s that was superb. Of course it was only three batters but he did face arguably the three toughest hitters in the game. Justin Jackson (K), Michael Burgess (2B, pop fly that dropped between SS and LF) and Jason Heyward (K). I liked what I saw from him.

 

Another pitcher I liked was Matt Harvey. He had a lot of Chris Carpenter in him. He threw straight over the top sitting 93-94 with his fastball touching 95. He also had a big 12-6 curveball like Carpenter, running in the mid 70s. I also liked Neil Ramirez and Rick Porcello. Porcello joined Harvey, Stock and Main as the only four to hit 95.

 

Any HS leftys out there that can go high?

 

Yeah there are a few. Madison Bumgarner, Tanner Robles and Josh Smoker could all find themselves in the first round. However, the college crop of lefties (Price, Doolittle, Schmidt, and Savery) all probably grade higher right now.

 

Any HS position players (particularly SS and CF) who are both somewhat polished and still have high upsides?

 

There are several good middle infielders. Nick Noonan, Justin Jackson and John Tolisano could all go in the first round. Jackson is the top position player among the HS crop. Noonan and Tolisano are less toolsy, but probably will be more advanced than Jackson. There's not much among the HS crop of CFers worth getting in the first five picks, unless Jackson moves to center (which is NOT expected).

[KingKongvs.Godzilla]

Actually I was wondering what the three top college lefties: Price, Savery, and Schmidt throw. Doolittle would be nice too.

 

The high school guy that interests me the most is Smoker.

 

What kind of stuff do these guys have?

[the splendid splinter]

Good names, also to be mentioned on the college side, would Cecil Lp from Maryland U and Moskos lp from Clemson.

[Mephistopheles]

Brett Cecil and Daniel Moskos are relievers. I like Moskos a lot, Cecil is okay but there are three other dynamite relievers who are probably better prospects than they are.

 

The first would be Rice's Cole St. Clair. He's a southpaw that completely obliterated the competition this spring. 7-2 1.82 ERA, 100:26 K:BB in 74.1 IP. He allowed just 39 hits for a .151 BAA. St. Clair's bread and butter is an electric fastball that can get in the mid 90s with outstanding movement and depth. He's going to go in the back half of the first round, or in the supplemental round.

 

Secondly I would have to go with Georgia's Josh Fields. He's been clocked in the upper 90s, hitting 99 in the College World Series in June according to the ESPN gun. He's also got an advanced feel for his offspeed pitches. He'll be in the supplemental round. He could sneak in the back end of the first round if he continues to develop his secondary offerings.

 

Another fireball righty is North Carolina's Andrew Carignan. Carrigan moved into their closer spot this spring with his fastball that reaches the high 90s. His FB sits 94-97 touching 98. He's likely going to find himself in the second round.

 

I love Daniel Moskos. He's probably a second round guy, though if the Cubs could grab in the third round I'd be ecstatic. Last spring his fastball sat in the low 90s which is good for a lefty RP, but he's been dynamite for Team USA. His fastball has been 94-97 and has shown a hard slider in the mid 80s that's a quality pitch.

 

Brett Cecil has been 92-94 this summer on the Cape with a high 80s octane slider. He's also got the makeup and drive perfect for the role.

 

Ben Hunter's another guy who could go high. He was very good this season and throws a good moving FB and slider, though I dunno if his stuff is dominant to be anything more than a setup man.

[The Q]

I have worked with Team USA during the summer and would like to add a few notes:

 

1) David Price is the #1 guy right now. He's a stud, who topped out at 98 but does sit at 91-94. He's a good athlete, but the dip in his motion and the fact that he'll whip his arm sometimes is concerning.

 

2) Cole St. Clair is the best closer prospect in recent memory. He has just been dominant and totally lights out for Team USA. He's big, throws in the mid 90s with good movement, has a nice curve and change too. I saw him pitch vs. the Newport Gulls of the NECBL and he basically ended the game. He came in with the bases loaded and no outs and easily struck out the side. He's also a very nice kid with a good head on his shoulders. Nothing every really bothers him. Same can be said for Price too.

 

But my favorite thing about Cole is his delivery. He's got that crazy leg kick which is in control, but totally deceptive. The ball seems like it's coming out of nowhere.

 

3) Moskos has to go in the 1st round right now. He's actually closing ahead of St. Clair for Team USA (baffling but true) and he's been pretty dominant. His stuff is up there too. And he's also a lefty.

 

4) Arencibia is another quality player. He hit over .400 last year for Team USA and was hitting .350 the last time I talked to him, which was right before they were going to Cuba.

 

5) I'm not high on Todd Frazier or Darwin Barney at all. Frazier has absolutely lead feet and a pretty slow bat. He seemed to get dominated by some of the higher level pitching he was facing.

 

I love Darwin as a person, great kid, but he's so small and lacks power. He's a 2B at the next level and probably has tghe upside of a David Eckstein.

 

6) Jake Arrietta apparentlly has been unhittable for team USA and has been in the rotation for a while now.

 

7) I know some of you guys were bashing Wes Roemer, but he's legit. He's usually around 90-92 (more than enough velo for the nex level) but he has THE BEST control of any amateur pitcher in recent memory. He went over 60 innings this past season without giving up a walk. He also has a heavy sinker that misses alot of bats and a hard biting slider. He's just so polished and advanced. Plus he's just a straight up warrior and a top notch athlete (he was an All American XC runner in HS).

[Outshined_One]

FYI, Q is the source I mentioned earlier.

[Mephistopheles]

I dunno about Roemer. He's hit or miss. I only saw him pitch in the CWS where most people thought he had worn down. He was in the upper 80s without a good second offering that game. I knew he was in the 90-92 range. He just seems to have a lot of similarities to Tim Stauffer in college including the Maddux comparisons we all know and love. Of course Stauffer was hurt when he signed and that could have to do with a lot of his professional struggles. It's just that there have been countless pitcher's evoking Maddux comps and most miss. I guess you can say the same thing about others. Don't take this wrong, he's a solid first rounder.

 

I've got nothing against Arrietta or Arencibia. If the Cubs continue to play decently and miss the top five, I'd love Arencibia to the Cubs. Is Moskos a lock for the first round? I can think of 30 guys I'd take over him, but that's just me I guess. I'm no scout or scouting director. And about St. Clair, I saw him dominate the two games in the NCAA tournament in a long role. I wouldn't be surprised if the team that drafts him thinks about converting him to a starter. Both the Red Sox and Blue Jays have done this several times. I think he's got the stuff needed to remain a starter.

 

How many people are really high on Barney? I've always thought the consenses was that he was a second or third teir middle infielder whose probably in the third round area. I've thought Harbin, Emaus, Cozart and Horton were better MI prospects.

 

I don't get to talk with scouts much, you've gotta know more about some of these guys than I do. Living in Houston and coming up as a player I talk to a lot of local scouts about local kids, but I've only talked to crosschecker once or twice, and not recently. A local product to keep an eye on is Sam Demel. He's got a short temper and has struck out 100 each of his first two seasons at TCU. In HS he threw 90-93 touching 94. He's about in that range still the last I heard, but he throws nearly sidearm and has a knockout slider. He's started for TCU but has closed in the CCL. He's been dominant: 1.73 ERA, 26 IP. 38:12 K:BB, 14 H. He's struck out 35% of the guys he's faced there. He's got the mean streak that he could be a good closer prospect down the road. Demel's not an unknown of course, he was one of the best "present" pitchers in the 2004 draft. He was top five talent with a tough sign at TCU.

Edited August 15, 2006 by Mephistopheles