| By Jason A. Churchill |  | By 06-07-2011 |
The M's followed up the Danny Hultzen selection by taking Clemson SS Brad Miller in round 2 and prep first baseman Kevin Cron in the third round.
Miller isn't a future shortstop but has plus makeup and can hit some.
Cron has big raw power but is a bat only as he profiles as a 1B/DH. He is the younger brother of first rounder C.J. Cron.
draft-day-2
Comments
The following 163 comment(s) for this article are shown below:
| 1. By: masonb on 06-07-2011 12:10:10 Jason, You said that it looks like Z is running this draft. How might a draft run by T-Mac have been different? |
| 2. By: baseballman on 06-07-2011 12:18:58 2 picks coming up |
| 3. By: eknpdx on 06-07-2011 12:19:17 If Z was running the draft, wouldn't we have picked Starling? |
| 4. By: Jason A. Churchill on 06-07-2011 12:21:07 Not if the cost was prohibitive. I don't believe for one second that McNamara chose Hultzen. Lindor was T-Mac's guy, and Jack overruled him. That is what I believe. |
| 5. By: eknpdx on 06-07-2011 12:22:45 Ah, that makes sense. I wouldn't mind Delmonico with one of these two picks coming up. Strong baseball roots right? |
| 6. By: Jason A. Churchill on 06-07-2011 12:23:37 Capps is a good pick. Delomonico may not be signable at all. |
| 7. By: Jason A. Churchill on 06-07-2011 12:25:44 Hicks is a decent pick, too. |
| 8. By: Jon O on 06-07-2011 12:27:17 Those high school kids (Maples, Delmonico, Fisher, etc.) must have put out some high asking prices for teams like the Red Sox to pass. It seems like the M's sure like to scout the ACC and atlatic coast area heavy. |
| 9. By: Jason A. Churchill on 06-07-2011 12:27:27 So far, I'd say the M's draft is very, very, mediocre. Almost no upside, no legit bats that could play everyday. |
| 10. By: eknpdx on 06-07-2011 12:28:42 Capps was like tops in Division II or something right? I guess Fisher is really a hard sign. Like the Hicks pick, didn't see that one or Capps either |
| 11. By: shemberry on 06-07-2011 12:29:10 Jason, I seem to remember that you posted about an international kid the Ms were the favorites for. Is there a chance they allotted more money to the international budget than the draft because they are planning to spend big there? |
| 12. By: Jason A. Churchill on 06-07-2011 12:31:20 No. |
| 13. By: masonb on 06-07-2011 12:31:43 One of the deepest drafts in years and the front office lays an egg. I know we should trust these guys, but is this a case of Z meddling in McNamara's job? What kind of grade would you give this draft so far? B, B-? |
| 14. By: baseballman on 06-07-2011 12:33:46 LOL, it's the 4th round, none of these guys are signed and no one knows what they will do in the future and yet you thinked the Mariners have "layed an egg" There is no pleasing some... |
| 15. By: eknpdx on 06-07-2011 12:33:52 I'd give it a "C." Hey JAC, what other teams draft are you liking the most? |
| 16. By: masonb on 06-07-2011 12:41:52 Yeah baseballman, considering that there were alot of other higher upside guys available, I do. Guess I didn't get your memo that I was supposed to be happy with reaching for guys and taking safe picks |
| 17. By: rjfrik on 06-07-2011 12:42:06 If the Pirates can sign Bell, they did pretty darn good so far. |
| 18. By: baseballman on 06-07-2011 12:43:59 LOL, ya masonb, Jack has no clue what he's doing. Maybe you could phone him and tell him to stop "reaching on safe" players. It's funny because the EXACT same things have been about almost all of Jack's draft picks since he's gotten here. Franklin and Walker were huge reaches at the time. How's that working out? |
| 19. By: Ayala Faction on 06-07-2011 12:45:37 Didn't he also reach on Fielder and Braun? |
| 20. By: shemberry on 06-07-2011 12:47:06 Jason, Does your no mean that the Draft budget is separate from the IFA's, that the Ms don't plan to spend big on IFA's, or both? |
| 21. By: baseballman on 06-07-2011 12:47:55 RE 19: HUGE reaches at the time. Looking at the players he's taken, I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt. |
| 22. By: The Great Pumpkin on 06-07-2011 12:49:53 #20 - THE IFA budget is seperate from the draft budget. |
| 23. By: eknpdx on 06-07-2011 12:50:26 Hey JAC, Dean is still on the board. Is he a hard sign? |
| 24. By: The Great Pumpkin on 06-07-2011 12:50:40 Jason - Who's the BPA right now? Osich? |
| 25. By: baseballman on 06-07-2011 12:50:48 shem, I'm not JAC, but I believe he's said before that the draft budget is completely separate from the IFA budget and the two don't have anything to do with each other. They set each accordingly regardless of the other. |
| 26. By: shemberry on 06-07-2011 12:53:18 I know that has been said before, but in reality it isn't possible. When I do my budget at my house if I choose to spend $550 a month on a car payment it will impact my ability to spend money on mortgage, cable, etc. I just don't see how it's possible that there is no cause and effect between the two. |
| 27. By: baseballman on 06-07-2011 12:55:50 It's possible because of their deep wallets. Just like when they decided to balloon the salary, they didn't take money away from somewhere else. They just increase budgets, and increasing a budget doesn't have to include decreasing another. |
| 28. By: masonb on 06-07-2011 12:56:04 Huge reaches at the time is exactly right. It's easy to look at things in retrospect and give him the benefit of the doubt. But now that the draft is happening and he is clearly reaching for some guys why shouldn't we be disappointed? If you wanna be satisfied now, that's fine, but this draft right now is a disappointment. Maybe in a year or two we'll look back and be happy with the guys we got, but right now, I feel otherwise. |
| 29. By: baseballman on 06-07-2011 12:57:45 mason, the point is that Jack gets labeled as "reaching" for players quite often and after the fact it's a different story. Just because you believe it to be a reach doesn't mean it's a reach. So what that the Mariners don't have the same big board as Keith Law? Why do you think we're in the wrong for that? |
| 30. By: Mackie on 06-07-2011 12:57:54 It is still way too early to tell whether the M's laid an egg in this year's draft. We probably won't know whether they did or not for a couple of years. They may not be drafting players we expected them to draft, that is, players who would seem to be picked sooner due to the general consensus about where they should be drafted, but because this is always a crap shoot, I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. Are they selecting more college players this year than in the past two drafts? |
| 31. By: Adam P. Boyd on 06-07-2011 12:59:50 You are comparing the Seattle Mariners budget to your personal budget? This is a team currently spending $90+m on payroll. The Rule 4 Draft budget and the IFA budgets are in no way connected. And, for what it is worth - you are simply going off certain people's boards. They may be a reach to some - and I agree that Miller was a reach - but for example BA had Brad Miller at #68 on their top 200. |
| 32. By: Jason A. Churchill on 06-07-2011 13:00:27 Shem, It just means that one hasn't anything to do with the other. Seattle is one of about 10 clubs that don't do that. Sure, there's an overall budget, but they don't go cheap on one so they can go heavier on another. if they don't spend their budget on the draft, it probably goes into Howard's pocket. |
| 33. By: masonb on 06-07-2011 13:01:33 Who said anything about Keith Law? It's my opinion. I very clearly stated that. I just think you gotta take the most highest upside guys as you can. I realize that bonus demands and such are a big part of all this, but the Miller and Cron and Hicks selections are head scratching because those guys aren't really high probability starters at the Major League level. When there's potential starters sitting there you gotta take those guys. I'm fine with the Hultzen pick because I know that probably means Rendon's medicals didn't check out, but I think Lindor should have been the pick. Hultzen was a good pick, but the picks after that are meh for me. Once again, sorry it seems to offend you that others have a deferring opinion |
| 34. By: Jason A. Churchill on 06-07-2011 13:01:44 Tyler Marlette, the prep catcher out of Florida, is a 5-11, 195 pound right-handed hitting backstop with adequate defensive tools but a crude understanding of the position. Same goes for his bat -- basically he's Steve Baron with less ceiling. |
| 35. By: masonb on 06-07-2011 13:04:14 Jason, Any ideas what kind of bonuses Delmonico and Fisher might be demanding? Also where do you see prep shortstops Tyler Greene and Phil Evans being picked? Why is Osich dropping? Sorry for all the questions |
| 36. By: baseballman on 06-07-2011 13:04:41 LOL I don't care that you have a different opinion than me. I'm telling you you're wrong to say this draft is basically a bust based on nothing really. First you say you would take the highest upside guys no matter what only to follow that comment up by saying we need to take high probability players...hmmm...to each his own I guess |
| 37. By: Jason A. Churchill on 06-07-2011 13:06:32 Delmonco and Fisher would take first round money to sign -- like mid first. Osuch dropping because of TJ surgery and the issue he had in his last start. Had to leave early with tightness in his elbow. |
| 38. By: shemberry on 06-07-2011 13:07:40 Exactly, the money not spent on the draft goes into Howard's wallet. It's basic economics, the Ms don't have an infinite amount of money. They set budgets and every dollar they allocate for one area is a dollar that isn't spent elsewhere. It sounds like some teams have an Amateur talent budget that goes towards the IFAs and the draft, and that the Ms have a Draft budget and an IFA budget and that those numbers are set and don't change. |
| 39. By: Jason A. Churchill on 06-07-2011 13:11:20 Some teams do that, shem, Seattle isn't one of them. They also don't stone their budgets. It's a somewhat flexible range, give or take a few million bucks. |
| 40. By: danviens on 06-07-2011 13:11:47 I was so excited for this years draft. But all this just seems like such a downer. Nobody appears to be enthused about any of these guys. Crap. |
| 41. By: eknpdx on 06-07-2011 13:12:53 Wondering what Maples contract demands were? His father said they told teams alredy what his asking price was to skip North Carolina. |
| 42. By: jcallahan on 06-07-2011 13:13:02 Don't know if you saw the Jerry Brewer article, but he has this little tidbit in it "Zduriencik knew the deal, of course. Hultzen was McNamara's guy, which meant he was the Mariners' guy." |
| 43. By: shemberry on 06-07-2011 13:14:01 Thanks Jason. Let me ask you a more difficult question: why are the M's doing this today? Are they trying to be cute or do they just see things that much different than the "experts"? |
| 44. By: docsmith on 06-07-2011 13:14:38 Hmmm....M's drafting for need at this point? Two catchers in a row. Any thoughts on if they were anywhere close to BPA? |
| 45. By: Jason A. Churchill on 06-07-2011 13:15:21 Yeah, jcallahan, that's complete BS. I know that isn't true. But Jack has always said Tom makes the decision, so he has to continue down that path or it's going to start major issues. Believe what you want, I'm just telling you what I know. Charlie Lowell is still available ... |
| 46. By: Mackie on 06-07-2011 13:17:21 Color me optimistic, but I'm enthused about all of the picks so far. I see no reason to not be enthused about them until we have seen how they perform in our minor league system. If people who are in the know about these things (like JAC is) are disappointed, I take that with more than a grain of salt and it causes my optimism to be colored with some skepticism, but I'm not going to be disappointed unless some of this year's bunch isn't helping the M's by 2013 or 2014... and if not by then, THEN I'll grumble. 8-) |
| 47. By: baseballman on 06-07-2011 13:17:56 RE 42: I just read that article. It makes me very excited. |
| 48. By: Jason A. Churchill on 06-07-2011 13:21:02 Re: 47 Kool-aid? |
| 49. By: docsmith on 06-07-2011 13:23:40 Ok..just answered my own question...Tyler Marlette is ranked as the #72 prospect by BA and we picked him up with the 153 pick and John Hicks was the #159 prospect by BA and we picked him up at 123. |
| 50. By: baseballman on 06-07-2011 13:37:46 Lol, I had written that post (47) before I read yours (45)...thanks for crushing my dreams ;) But come on, Hultzen is going to be a very good pitcher. Jack is no slouch of a scout himself. It could end up being the right decision to trump Tom. |
| 51. By: MoneyMike on 06-07-2011 13:47:38 Jason, What's it going to take from the M's tomorrow to really "blow up your skirt"? (why exactly that's a metaphor for something good happening is really beyond me). |
| 52. By: Jason A. Churchill on 06-07-2011 13:50:22 It's never the right decision to tell the world and your SD that he makes the pick and then not let him make the pick. And now he and Jack both have to lie about it going forward. And I don't trust that Jack is so much better a talent evaluator than everyone else I have talked to that sees these players and makes similar decisions on the draft. I know of two teams that didn't have Hultzen top 6, and one that ranked him 9. The area guys and regional crosscheckers love Hultzen, but not one of them believes there is a chance he is a No. 1 starter. Considering all of that, and then seeing what Hultzen offer for myself regarding stuff and command, I will never buy that he was the second best player in the class of 2011. Not a chance in my eyes. But again, you all can drink the kool-aid and believe what you want, but I suggest at least realizing that what the M's say about their own players in this manner means nothing at all. |
| 53. By: baseballman on 06-07-2011 13:53:59 I'm not drinking koo-aid if I think that Hultzen has a chance to be good. We'll see what happens in the next few years I guess |
| 54. By: JD Kickastro on 06-07-2011 13:55:21 This draft sucks. Feels like they're going cheap because of the bonus amount that Hultzen will be taking up. |
| 55. By: danviens on 06-07-2011 13:57:05 So what are you saying then Jason? That the M's front office is in dissaray and this draft is about something other than acquiring premium talent? I don't get it. Just a few days ago you were saying we should expect a great draft because "these guys aren't stupid" Now it kind of sounds like you're saying they're stupid. Please help us understand what you're saying about this draft, because right now it sounds like a lot of doom and gloom.... and that bums me out. |
| 56. By: JonathanAicardi on 06-07-2011 13:58:53 I agree with Jason. Hultzen in all likelihood may reach his ceiling and may be a solid starter #3, or eve 2 for us. He has stuff and command. That's fine with me. It doesn't change that the policy is flawed. They passed on several better players to take him at number 2. The bottom line is for a team struggling to score, struggling for sustainable success, that's just bad policy. |
| 57. By: sawman on 06-07-2011 13:59:07 Jason its disapointing to see you get this negative and emoitinal. |
| 58. By: John_S on 06-07-2011 13:59:23 Baseballman, Good or special? When you are drafting #2 you want to draft someone who has a chance to be special. Gerrit Cole has a chance to be special because of his 100 mph fastball Rendon has a chance to be special because of his defense and his above average hit tool Dylan Bundy has a chance to be special because of his 100mph fastball and his feel for such a young age Bubba Starling has a chance to be special because of his plus bat speed, build, athleticism and arm Lindor has a chance to be special because of his defense and above avg hitting ability. |
| 59. By: slamcactus on 06-07-2011 13:59:30 Am I just missing it, or is Jason Coats still on the board? Seems like he'd be a damn good 6th round pick. Him or Osich would make me pretty happy. |
| 60. By: JD Kickastro on 06-07-2011 14:01:35 Fisher to Texas and Osich to San Francisco. Seems like every club with good drafting history are taking risks. The Mariners aren't and there's really no interesting players left. 12 months of anticipation and excitement torn to shreds in a matter of 20 hours. |
| 61. By: baseballman on 06-07-2011 14:03:09 John_S, Hultzen has the tools to be special. LHP that do what he does don't grow on trees. The guys you mention do have the chance to be special, I'm not denying that, but they also carry quite a bit of risk. And what's the point of listing Cole, we never had the chance to draft him. I guess I'm not the "sky is falling" type because no one knows how these players will perform. |
| 62. By: masonb on 06-07-2011 14:03:52 Jason, What does this do for McNamara's and Z's relationship? Seems like if my boss told me all along he was going to trust me to make a decision and do my job and then he steps in a overrules me last minute, I'd probably start to question what he's been telling me all along. |
| 63. By: LarryL on 06-07-2011 14:04:04 What would motivate Jack to lie and make his scouting director lie as well? Like everyone reported, there wasn't a number one consensus pick this year. There wasn't a clear-cut number two. Any of the top five or six players would have been a good choice. By all accounts that I have heard, Hultzen has a real chance to be a number one or two starter for a long time. How can that be a bad pick? |
| 64. By: masonb on 06-07-2011 14:05:30 baseballman, I'm basing my opinion on the fact that they have passed over better players to make some of their picks? What's so hard to understand about that? |
| 65. By: Edman on 06-07-2011 14:10:29 It's so sad what we all think we know. I don't believe that Jack ever said that Tom McNamara makes all the decisions about the draft. Ultimately, it's always the GM who makes the ultimate decision. And, they assemble a team of advisors, of which McNamara is the primary one. I'm not at all ready to conclude that Jack Z went against the popular consensus of the panel of people Seattle had in it's war room. And it's mighty bold of anyone to call someone a liar. If you make a statement like that, you should be careful. So what, it was a bummer from the aspect of not taking the glamour names? But, that doesn't make it a bad draft. How many were saying the same things about Franklin? We'll all know in two or three years how well this draft turns out. They're always crapshoots, no matter who you draft. Because the glamourous names didn't get called, doesn't mean that they were wrong. I don't really know, but knowing how many drafees fail, I'm not going to worry about it too much. In three years, Jack could like like a fool, or maybe even a genious. I get that those who follow the draft have certain "expectations".....but one of the reasons you have a scouting department is to find out if the player has the tools, or can develop the tools to become a Major Leaguer. I believe that Hultzen's work ethic weighed heavily in their decision to draft him. That doesn't show on paper. |
| 66. By: VikingArthur on 06-07-2011 14:10:59 First of all....this is the baseball draft. History shows us that plenty of late round picks will become megastars and tons of first rounders will be complete washouts. As for the Hultzen pick... clearly Rendon's bum shoulder and its prognosis was opaque. So... do you grab the best college pitcher (not in terms of "measurables" but actual performance) or do you grab a HS kid and hope that in 4 years he can be in the majors? I can see both sides of the argument on that. I think there is a real possibility that Pirates fans will be just like Mariners fans on the whole Morrow/Lincecum thing (big strong power pitcher with less than impressive intangibles vs. the craftier guy who seems to understand how to pitch). The Franklin pick was lambasted widely.... he is working out better than the most optimistic scouting report could have predicted. I think GMZ values baseball acumen from his draftees. This administration has produced/acquired a lot of talent quite quickly. Give them the benefit of the doubt. |
| 67. By: danviens on 06-07-2011 14:15:01 FINALLY a pick Jason likes!!!!! |
| 68. By: Edman on 06-07-2011 14:15:10 LMAO.....now, we're assuming a rift between JZ and McNamera. I think we're taking this a little bit too far in speculation. |
| 69. By: danviens on 06-07-2011 14:15:45 How many draft eligible players does the U of Virginia have? Because apparently we're targeting all of them. |
| 70. By: johnburkland on 06-07-2011 14:16:26 Did UVa have the best team in the history of the universe this year? Do we win a prize if we catch 'em all? |
| 71. By: danviens on 06-07-2011 14:18:10 Could it be that the Hultzen pick was made precisely because he's near major-league ready, and Jack forsees trading Felix in 2012 for major offensive help; knowing he can fall back on a rotation of Pineda, Hultzen, Paxton, Vargas etc??? |
| 72. By: Jason A. Churchill on 06-07-2011 14:20:50 Carson Smith in round 8 is the best pick thus far for Seattle. Right-hander, 91-94 mph, good slider, but his arm slot is low -- no changeup -- and his delivery screams bullpen. But this late it's OK to take a relief prospect, and Smith could pitch late in games. I like. Edited -- it's round 8, not 7. |
| 73. By: JonathanAicardi on 06-07-2011 14:23:49 Felix still has years of club control, is an ace and is the face of the franchise. I don't see them drafting Hultzen for the reason of trading him. That's a pretty big reach. Hultzen just fits in with the general draft mantra of the M's, as in his tools and his background are very conventional. He doesn't have an odd delivery or health history or any severe red flags. Think Brandon Morrow, another very "straight scout" guy, fastball, curve, clean delivery, etc. |
| 74. By: Edman on 06-07-2011 14:24:23 Lordy people, the speculation is reaching silly. Jack considering trading Felix? Really? Possibly the best pitcher in this decade? |
| 75. By: masonb on 06-07-2011 14:26:45 What's the story on Cavan Cohoes. Apparently he played his high school ball in Germany. |
| 76. By: Jason A. Churchill on 06-07-2011 14:26:57 I think baseballman is Tony Blengino. |
| 77. By: danviens on 06-07-2011 14:32:24 If you all want to bury your heads in the ground and belive that we will never trade Felix, fine. My point is this. We have pitching. Safe to say it's the strength of our organization right now? What's the weakest area? Guys who can hit, and in particular guys who project to be elite hitters. I'm speculating that we may be moving into an area where we will be able to move assets for assets. If you aren't developing your own hitters, you're left with only two other ways of aquiring it; through free agency or trades. Free agency is a crapshoot where you have to outbid other suitors (translation; overpay) to get guys who are usually entering into their declining years. You also have to consider that Safeco is a tough sell for FA hitters. So getting those guys through trades is the most plausible option. Don't want to trade Felix just because you have an emotional attachment to him? OK then. You could trade Pineda, or Hultzen in a year, or Walker, or Paxton, or to a lesser extent Vargas or Fister. I'm just saying. If you allow yourself to be open-minded, you can see a scenario where we are loaded with good young starting pitchers, and can fix most (if not all) of our lineup issues by making ONE deal (Felix.) It's worth considering. |
| 78. By: Adam P. Boyd on 06-07-2011 14:36:19 I feel like it is much more likely Vargas or Fister is dealt in the offseason - Vargas particularly, as he is going to get expensive quickly. |
| 79. By: JonathanAicardi on 06-07-2011 14:41:34 No one is arguing against trading pitching for hitting and in fact, it's about the only avenue the M's have allowed themselves after Ackley graduates. The point is it should not be the motivation for who you select with the number 2 overall pick. With a selection that high, it is the responsibility of the franchise to maximize gain by taking the best player available, whether best overall player, best overall pitcher, or best college pitcher. Hultzen was none of these things. |
| 80. By: Edman on 06-07-2011 14:42:03 Then allow yourself to be just as popen-minded about the draft. It works both ways. They certainly aren't drafting with the expectation of trading pitching. If that's how it turns out, fine. But to imply that there is a current strategy involved is a huge reach. Everything is worth considering. Even the idea that with stellar pitching, similar to the Giants last season, that you don't have to get expensive free agent hitters. You can acquire offensive upgrades that don't tax your budget. It's all in how you want to spend. Free Agents in general are not a way to build a team. It's a way to fill a need, when the team is ready. |
| 81. By: baseballman on 06-07-2011 14:45:22 "With a selection that high, it is the responsibility of the franchise to maximize gain by taking the best player available, whether best overall player, best overall pitcher, or best college pitcher. Hultzen was none of these things." That's your opinion though. I disagree that Hultzen wasn't the best college and that's my opinion. One of us will be right, but I don't see the point at lamenting over players who may or may not ever see the bigs. |
| 82. By: Edman on 06-07-2011 14:46:01 #79, how was Hultzen not one of those things? Based on what? Public opinion? Seems to me that just a few weeks ago, he was linked to Pittsburgh as a potential #1 overall pick. |
| 83. By: masonb on 06-07-2011 14:46:20 Which is exactly why hitting should have been targeted. Sure Hultzen is going to help next year and have an impact, but Starling, Lindor and Rendon had way higher upside to justify spending the pick on Hultzen, IMO |
| 84. By: JonathanAicardi on 06-07-2011 14:49:30 According to what I've been reading about stuff, tools, ability to hold velocity, ceiling, etc, Trevor Bauer was the better college pitcher. If they wanted an experienced college arm that according to general scouting would move quickly, why not take the guy with the best tools? Right? |
| 85. By: danviens on 06-07-2011 14:50:29 RE# 79 Clearly the Mariners agree he was the best player at number 2, because...... they DRAFTED HIM THERE! I was livid when the pick was made, but I feel better about it now. Just a couple of years ago we were all screaming about how we had NO pitching in the organization, now we have so much we can't justify taking a guy that more than one scouting service says has a Cliff Lee ceiling??? This reminds me of the Seahawks draft. No one seemed to like it because it's hard to wrap your heart around the idea of offensive linemen. It's boring. Ultimately this pick will be judged in context. Right now it's our only focus. |
| 86. By: Edman on 06-07-2011 14:53:21 So, masonb, Seattle should have drafted for need, rather than taking the best player available on their board? Rings a bit of drafting Clement for need, since we already had a shortstop of the future.....goooooo Yuni. |
| 87. By: JonathanAicardi on 06-07-2011 14:54:06 What I see are two pitchers from big baseball programs, both of whom are advanced, both who are said could move quickly, except one has better velocity and secondary stuff than the other. Why not take that one? |
| 88. By: Edman on 06-07-2011 14:55:41 #84, how do Bauer and Hultzen rate in regard to work ethic? Don't know? Neither do I. Some things aren't directly measureable. |
| 89. By: johnburkland on 06-07-2011 14:56:13 especially when that one is going to sign cheaper. |
| 90. By: masonb on 06-07-2011 14:56:27 Way to take what I say out of context. Drafting Rendon (if healthy), Lindor or Starling is drafting for need? I don't think that anyone would disagree with you that Hultzen is one of the top players on the board, but with the #2 pick in the draft you don't take a guy who has an upside of a #2 starter. You have to take an impact everyday player or a potential ace. That's my opinion. I love how everything has to be a pissing contest with you. |
| 91. By: JonathanAicardi on 06-07-2011 14:57:35 From what I've read, both have outstanding work ethics. |
| 92. By: John_S on 06-07-2011 14:59:16 RE 76 LOL RE 74, Edman, did you not read Jason's subscriber reason for drafting Hultzen, it's one of a few scenarios that he brought up. A GM has to have a plan that is 3-5 years ahead and have contingencies they cannot plan for the year and that's it. RE 65 Listen to Jack Z's interview on KJR from last nite. He said that he differs to Tom because they've spent the year evaluating these kids and he's only seen them once maybe twice he's not going to overstep Tom. If Tom asked his opinion he would give it, but it's Tom's choice. |
| 93. By: Jason A. Churchill on 06-07-2011 14:59:20 Lowell from Wichita is still available. I think he has a chance to be a No. 4 starter. He'd be good value in any round now. |
| 94. By: sexymarinersfan on 06-07-2011 15:01:43 I wouldn't worry about our draft too much. Just because JAC doesn't like it doesn't mean jack shit. We've been told Jack has reached on many picks in the past only to turn out to be be really good to decent later on. How can you possibly even give a "C" grade?! You don't know how these players will turn out. See this is what pisses me off. You won't be able to give an accurate grade until 2-3 years from now. |
| 95. By: Jason A. Churchill on 06-07-2011 15:01:54 Matt Dean is still available, too. Buy him out of his college commitement and he's a legit bat to add to the system. |
| 96. By: JD Kickastro on 06-07-2011 15:02:33 In the Hultzen versus Bauer argument, I think Bauer's workload was probably a concern for a lot of people. |
| 97. By: JonathanAicardi on 06-07-2011 15:02:34 And even if the better one wasn't going to sign for cheaper, I'd pay the extra half-mil to million to sign a premium talent when it's all said and done. A little extra now for an ace down the road is worth trying to make that upgrade in the future via free agency. If everything else is equal, the M's should've taken the guy with the better skills. The issue is that Bauer has his own workout regimen and his own style of pitching, both of which go against the conventional sense, not unlike Tim Lincecum. So, they took a lesser talent for the what they believed was a safer choice, not because he was the best player. |
| 98. By: danviens on 06-07-2011 15:03:06 We just took our 4th Catcher of the day, if you count Crone |
| 99. By: baseballman on 06-07-2011 15:09:31 "So, they took a lesser talent for the what they believed was a safer choice, not because he was the best player." Ugh, enough! Just because you've read Bauer may be better doesn't make it so...you said it yourself, you've READ about these players, you're not a scout and you weren't in the Mariners draft room. There is no way you can make that comment with certainty. |
| 100. By: masonb on 06-07-2011 15:13:30 Just like there's no way you can insinuate that Hultzen was a better pick there. Safer pick yes, but according to what I and many others have read from scouts and other people in the know, Bauer was a better player. I thought that was the point of drafting. To pick the best players. Sure no one can truly evaluate a draft class until several years later, but you have to make the pick in the present meaning that you pick the player who is the best NOW. You can't just make a blanket statement that you have to give the FO the benefit of the doubt because of what has happened in past drafts. Sure they've done well, but it doesn't necessarily mean that this draft was done well. Based off what we know now and the evaluation of these players now, they've made several questionable picks. |
| 101. By: Tommy O on 06-07-2011 15:17:10 JAC- If Pitt would have drafted Hultzen 1st, who would have our pick have been? |
| 102. By: Tommy O on 06-07-2011 15:17:10 JAC- If Pitt would have drafted Hultzen 1st, who would have our pick have been? |
| 103. By: danviens on 06-07-2011 15:17:13 It's a ridiculous debate, Bauer vs. Hultzen. Time will tell which one is better. The pertinent debate is why didn't we take a potential elite bat there? That's how we will ultimately grade this draft. If two years from now Hultzen is a #4 starter, Rendon is an All-Star, and Starling and Lindor are top prospects, and the Mariners are STILL offensively retarded, then you can say the Hultzen pick was a mistakes. But a lot can, and will happen between now and then. |
| 104. By: Edman on 06-07-2011 15:17:23 For crying out loud, there is so little difference between Bauer's and Hultzen's talent levels, it's not worth all the whinning. To even argue that one is better than the other is beyond pointless. Both could be either a #1 to #3 starter in a rotation. It all depends on who you listen to. It's borderline insane to mince between the two. |
| 105. By: JonathanAicardi on 06-07-2011 15:17:58 Relax baseballman, it's not like I'm making wild claims here. Several different sources have gathered scouting reports on both players and that allows us to compare them directly. The argument is simply that if you can show with quantifiable measures that one prospect has an advantage over the other, I would want my team to select the better prospect. Wouldn't you? |
| 106. By: rjfrik on 06-07-2011 15:18:55 I think Hultzen will be fine. He's a lefty that profiles at a TOR lefty at his ceiling. I have to think that Jack and Mac or just Jack thinks that ceiling will be met. I do think the next guys on their board or the guys even with Hultzen were Starling and Lindor, but I think time to the big leagues is what set Hultzen apart. If he signs early this year, he could potentially be up sometime next year. He's going to be an arm like Leake or Sale that move very quickly through the lower levels in my opinion. This does give the M's flexibility to target a bat with their surplus of pitching. And really with Ackley coming up and the potential staff of (Felix, Pineda, Hultzen, Vargas, Paxton) they only need another bat or two to be a major player. Pitching can win you a championship (see S.F.) I would not want to face Felix, Pineda and Hultzed in a series at all. The problem I have with this draft is the later rounds. This is where your money is made. Last year they picked superbly, in my opinion. This year is meh. They had a shot to take an impact player in the second round (to me Miller isn't it) and even an impact player in the third round. Cron might be a slugger, he has hit tool, but he becomes Greg Luganski or Billy Butler, which I guess works, we do need a DH. I just felt like in such a deep draft and limited high picks, they would of splurged on the second and third round picks. But I guess all we can do is sit back and hope it all turns out. Personally I'm in the bandwagon that wishes we would of plucked a potential superstar position player. But there's always next year right? |
| 107. By: Jason A. Churchill on 06-07-2011 15:27:30 TEs from around the league are OK on the picks of Hicks, Proscia, Smith, Capps, but were luke warm on Hultzen at 2, some hated it. I'll have a report on Kevin Cron tonight for subscribers. After talking to some four corner scouts and Keith Law, I'm a little warmer on that pick. The report will reveal why that is. |
| 108. By: Edman on 06-07-2011 15:29:20 #105, specifically what are your sources? |
| 109. By: Edman on 06-07-2011 15:30:35 Seems to me, that every year, people complain about the draft. Doesn't really matter who gets picked, someone won't like it. |
| 110. By: Mackie on 06-07-2011 15:34:46 So far 11 of 15 players chosen are college kids. Is that unusual? It's fun to think about future rotations and all, and when one does, it seems there could indeed be a depth in pitching. Thus, maybe the team will be able to deal from this strength during the coming few years. If some of us are disappointed with this draft, maybe that can be made up for with some trades for missing pieces in the Mariner lineup should the M's still be in contention by the trading deadline. Or, if the M's are sellers instead of buyers by then, I'm confident they can pick up a few prospects from other teams to add to those they have drafted during the past few years. |
| 111. By: Edman on 06-07-2011 15:37:15 As the saying goes, you can never have too much pitching. |
| 112. By: JonathanAicardi on 06-07-2011 15:49:41 MLB, BA and ESPN and they all say generally the same thing: both have great poise, command, durability, but Bauer the better offerings practically across the board and the higher ceiling. The issue with Hultzen is his velocity is relatively new and he doesn't hold it past the 5th/6th. His breaking ball also isn't all the way there. Bauer, on the other hand, is said to have all those attributes ready to go. I'm not arguing at all that Hultzen is going to be a bad player and like I said, if he reaches his suggested ceiling as a number 2 starter, great. Whatever. But why not go for the higher upside talent who's just as likely to reach his ceiling of being an ace? That's all I'm arguing. I can see taking a pitcher over the bats if the bats either have significant medical issues (Rendon) or are too far away (Starling and Lindor). But maximize your value. That's all. |
| 113. By: Edman on 06-07-2011 15:56:53 For the record, MLB rated Hultzen ahead of Bauer....just saying. |
| 114. By: DKulich44 on 06-07-2011 15:58:09 I've been a big fan of Jack and Mac, I trust them, and I'm willing to wait on this one, but I really can not help but be disappointed with the results of this draft so far. There was a lot of value to be had this year, and it seems like each pick the Mariners made (outside of a couple, two of which are potential relievers) have been a pick they made far before the player was expected to go. I'm no scout, and Jack and Mac are, but it seems like the consensus in the industry is that Seattle's done a poor job with this draft. Either Jack and Mac know a great deal more than the entire industry, or they're making questionable picks. While I'd like to trust our FO here, I'm tending on agreeing with the rest of the industry that they're not doing a very good job with their selections. Even if Hultzen does hit his ceiling, which is a good #2 starter, he's going to be paid handsomely to to it, and at least one of Rendon, Starling, and Lindor might become a bonafide superstar. With the #2 pick and that much star power sitting there, I just don't think it's wise to pass on it. I'm shocked the Mariners have gone the safe, less upside road, but perhaps there's more pressure coming down from above and more jobs on the line than we thought, even with the success the Mariners have had this season. |
| 115. By: Edman on 06-07-2011 16:04:20 Please, not the "come down from above" theory. This isn't the Bavasi era. |
| 116. By: DKulich44 on 06-07-2011 16:16:43 I think you misunderstood Ed, I didn't say they made the pick. I think Jack took the safest pick that will quickly make his way to the bigs the fastest. We know that Jack was on the hot seat because of the Leuke incident and the team's record. That has seemed to been put in the past lately, but perhaps that still is hanging over his head? I'm not trying to start a conspiracy, or blame Chuck and Howard, I'm just giving a completely plausible reason for Jack making what seems to be a very safe pick with limited upside. |
| 117. By: John_S on 06-07-2011 16:37:08 Edman, Whats the history of Chuck and Lincoln? Have they not influenced choices in the past by their edict that the GM has to build a winner ASAP? Just because you say that it's not the Bavasi era does not mean that they have not put heat on Jack Z. That is Chuck and Lincoln's MO. Quit trying to shoot down ideas or how you percieve a post to be just because you're a douche. |
| 118. By: short on 06-07-2011 17:01:13 Hultzen is a fine pick, even though I wanted another high-ceiling position player in the organization. I think the team decided that Rendon was too risky. They weren't the only FO that decided that, apparently. Once Rendon was eliminated from consideration the next best position players were probably Starling and Lindor. Starling is very likely to try to become Nebraska's next starting QB. (Can you blame him?) Lindor is 17. Years further from the majors than Hultzen. So I think they picked the guy who is more likely to help the next Mariners playoff team. And Hultzen could be a very good starting major league pitcher. That's never a failure or a "reach" or a "safe pick" if that's what you get. In ANY round. |
| 119. By: Marco on 06-07-2011 17:02:05 #106 "Pitching can win you a championship" Very true. Pitching alone can even transform the worst hitting team into a contender (ref. 2011 M's) Also, it's much easier to deal for a premium bat than a premium pitcher. |
| 120. By: aerichner on 06-07-2011 17:04:26 any of those unsignables/tough signs left out there? |
| 121. By: gwangung on 06-07-2011 17:08:28 "Whats the history of Chuck and Lincoln? Have they not influenced choices in the past by their edict that the GM has to build a winner ASAP? " That's an excuse used by prior GMs, yes. Pressuring to do it too early hindrance. On the other hand, "building a winner ASAP" is hardly a crippling handicap, imho. |
| 122. By: Edman on 06-07-2011 17:11:52 John, what exactly is the history of Lincoln and Armstrong, related to the draft? You have more than your opinion to use as evidence that in the Bavasi era, there was so much pressure on him that he had to select Fields? Or, perhaps that was purely his boneheaded decision done in an effort to keep his job? There is nothing to suggest that Chowie have in any way put any pressure on Jack, especially after his results so far this season. Had they continued to spiral, you might have a case. But, I think his moves this year have allowed him to put up the "Do Not Enter" sign on his door, for Chowie. Just more fan paranoia, IMO. |
| 123. By: Edman on 06-07-2011 17:14:45 Agreed, gwangung.....name an ownership group that doesn't expect a winner as soon as possible? In the case of Seattle, it's as soon as they can assemble enough talented players. That means having a plan for the present and a plan for the future. |
| 124. By: Wes45 on 06-07-2011 18:31:24 Hultzen isn't the guy that I was wishing for. Heck, he's not my 2nd or 3rd choice either. However, nothing about the choice suggests to me that they picked him out of need or based on some "win now" edict. It actually seems to be the inverse to me. Starting pitching is absolutely the bell cow of this team right now and that's the last thing we need if the goal is incrementally improve ASAP. Picking for need would be picking a 3B or LF who could who's close to MLB ready. That's why so many--including me--wanted Rendon. Picking Hultzen to me can seemingly only indicate that they chose the guy who THEY FELT to be the best player available. Ceiling x likelihood of hitting ceiling = BPA. Perhaps one could question their judgment but I don't think you could question their motivation. It's certainly reasonable for some of us to disagree on the selection based on what we've read. However, it's obviously also reasonable for Z and Mac to have opinions that differ. I'm going to ride this out and hope they're right. #117. I understand your distaste for Howard and Chuck. I think you'd have a hard time finding many outside of their immediate families who found them competent at their current jobs. That said, be careful how much creedence you put into the words of Bill Bavasi who has proven to be a lobotomized chimpanzee many times over. Even if he did have some extra pressure not to "rebuild", it doesn't justify his putrid choices. Lincecum was more MLB ready than Morrow. Braun and Tulo were more ready to contribute than Clement. Anybody was more MLB ready than Aumont. Bavasi's actions don't back his claims. You take the best player when your pick comes and then figure out how to deal with any positional logjams later which is exactly what Washington did with Rendon and what I would suggest that Z and Mac did. They added to a position of strength and they'll figure out how to use all of their assets as time goes on. |
| 125. By: Blowgun7 on 06-07-2011 19:28:18 One of the best classes is a long time, and I quite frankly think it's a worse set of selections than 2009 and 2010. There is no Ackley, Walker, Franklin, or Paxton upside in the M's draft class... unbelievable that we leave this draft without a single player who has superstar potential.. All the guys with potential solid hit/power tools can't stick at their positions, and there was not a single risk/tough sign kid taken in any of the later rounds.. How this team can walk away from this packed draft with so little upside in the players selected is amazing to me.. This organization had a chance to really make itself known to the AL West and take that next big step towards becoming a legit competitive organization, and they throw together this average to below average class?? And don't tell me that we have to wait and see what happens... as I said, the hitters they took in the front end of the draft are lousy defenders at the positions they currently are playing... And our most exciting pitchers (outside of Hultzen) are bullpen types.. |
| 126. By: baseballman on 06-07-2011 19:33:29 So Paxton is better than Hultzen blowgun? |
| 127. By: Blowgun7 on 06-07-2011 19:39:36 I didn't say he's better, but he has the same if not a slightly higher ceiling than Hultzen.. Hultzen is the better prospect cause he's certainly safer, but I don't see Hultzen having any more upside.. And the big difference is that Paxton was a fourth round pick.. and Hultzen went #2 overall.. As I said, this class was loaded and we didn't take advantage.. We took no risk at all, and drafted players who's bats aren't special at the positons they'll be moving to in the future. |
| 128. By: slamcactus on 06-07-2011 19:39:48 "Both could be either a #1 to #3 starter in a rotation." I don't hate the Hulzten pick as much as some on here, but show me any even remotely reputable source who agrees with you that he has ace upside. |
| 129. By: ghill_3406 on 06-07-2011 19:42:30 What did you bloggers do before the Internet? Did you just sit in a room and pretend to know how to scout and spit out your scouting reports to your pet cat? Don't for a minute believe this pick was all JZ. Did he have say? Sure. Was it all him? No. Who cares if DH is a projected #1 or #2 starter. There are only a handful of #1 starters in the big leagues now, so if Hultzen ends up a #2 starter, what's so bad about that?? What would you do? 1) Take a guy that has 60% chance to be Cole Hamels? or 2) Take a guy that has a 20% chance to be Dale Murphy and may not even sign? Or a guy that has a 20% chance to be Jose Reyes (i.e Lindor)? Pretty easy choice for me. Just wait in 3 years when DH is sitting behind King and Pineda in a roatation that is taking the M's to the playoffs and Starling is walking a campus in Lincoln, NE and Lindor is in High A, broken down from a 140 game minor league season. |
| 130. By: Smoakmaster on 06-07-2011 19:43:26 Blowgun Is that a joke?? The knock on Franklin was that he graded out as average ok his tools, not one tool was considered plus than he had a good year last year and everybody forgot how mad they were when we draftees him Paxton - how does he have more upside than hultzen? Walker - he was a kid with a low 90 fastball and one pitch last year. He has been impressive so far but what makes Jim have superstR potential while hultzen doesn't have?? |
| 131. By: Blowgun7 on 06-07-2011 19:44:25 I didn't read Jason's scouting report, but unless Hultzen is going to have ++ ML command, he's going to end up as a middle of the rotation guy, and a total failure as the #2 overall pick... because I guarantee you that at least one of Bundy, Bauer, Rendon, Starling, or Lindor are going to end up being a star |
| 132. By: Smoakmaster on 06-07-2011 19:45:59 Please tell me how Paxton has higher upside than hultzen?? Paxton is a 22 year old in low class a who still struggles with command. What do you base him having a higher ceiling than hultzen |
| 133. By: Smoakmaster on 06-07-2011 19:47:36 Hultzen has plus command, that is one of his greatest strengths. You just named give guys and said one of then will be a superstar, we only had one pick, what if we picked the wrong one? |
| 134. By: Blowgun7 on 06-07-2011 19:50:34 130.. What about Franklin? Which one of the position player draftees has the ability to turn into what Nick has become? A legit above average SS prospect?? Which of those kids has his upside? You can't tell me that the kid from Clemson can become Franklin, because he can't... he's not going to stick at SS Cron is a future DH.. Paxton probably has better pure stuff than Hultzen.. so his upside is higher... not a better prospect due to the fact he has command issues, but if everything clicks, I'll take Paxton over Hultzen |
| 135. By: Smoakmaster on 06-07-2011 19:53:53 Command is the biggest issue for a pitcher. And hultzen has 3 above average pitches, how many does Paxton have? If Franklin wouldn't have hit 20 homers last year nobody would be giving him any love. Also, find someone who is a 100% sold on him sticking at shortstop? |
| 136. By: baseballman on 06-07-2011 19:54:05 blowgun, you lambasted the Walker pick last year proclaiming how you knew they would blow it and how bad they messed up picking him. And Nick Franklin? Lol, you went on a tirade about that pick calling the Mariners cheap and said what a horrible reach he was. Now both of them you list as superstar potential picks of ours? At least you're consistent. And who knows, maybe next year you will complain how we didn't come away with any player in Hultzen or Miller's category...but I guess it's a good thing you don't like Hultzen, he should turn into a Cy Young winner now! So many who are complaining about our picks now complained last year and the year before, only to do an about face and praise the quality and depth in our system. |
| 137. By: Blowgun7 on 06-07-2011 19:55:59 It's a ceiling.. That means if everything works out perfectly.. If everything works out perfectly, why would you laugh at the notion that Paxton will be a superior pitcher? And I didn't name five guys and say one will be a superstar.. I said at least one will be a star.. and if one does become a star, then the M's screwed up on their pick, because they could have had one, but didn't assess the skills/risk/potential accurately. |
| 138. By: slamcactus on 06-07-2011 19:57:23 "Who cares if DH is a projected #1 or #2 starter. There are only a handful of #1 starters in the big leagues now, so if Hultzen ends up a #2 starter, what's so bad about that??" I'd like it to be in the realm of possibility when drafting a pitcher with pick 1-2. Pitchers are inherently risky. Even supposed "sure thing" pitchers have a huge attrition rate. I think a pitcher needs to be much, much better (in terms of certainty and upside) than the top hitter on your board when you're picking this high. That's why I'm not a huge fan (and most here aren't either). |
| 139. By: baseballman on 06-07-2011 19:57:39 "Cron is a future DH" You say that like it's some terrible thing. Since Edgar, how good have we been at that position? |
| 140. By: Blowgun7 on 06-07-2011 20:02:38 You're clearly exaggerating my response to the Walker and Franklin picks... I was quite happy with last yrs draft, and I called the M's cheap the year before over the combination of Franklin/Baron.. Of course I didn't know how good Franklin would be, but we did know he had a high chance of sticking at SS and was 17 yrs old, which meant there was some upside there.. And whoever said, that if Franklin didn't hit 20 bombs last yr, he wouldn't be brought up... yeah... so what? He did hit 20 bombs as a 18 yr old in the MW league... We're talking about upside here, and he proved last yr that he has legit upside You are comparing that to a player who nobody thinks can stick at SS and is a college player... we pretty much know what we're gonna get with that 2nd round pick.. there can surely be growth, but how can u say that kid has as much upside as the players I listed? |
| 141. By: Blowgun7 on 06-07-2011 20:07:06 I don't hate the Cron pick.. his bat can be legit, but drafting a 17 yr old (who may be a tough sign)who projects probably as a DH doesn't get me excited.. If he becomes Frank Thomas or Edgar, I'll gladly eat my words... but I'm not giddy over drafting a one dimensional player in a deep draft like this. There were plenty of well rounded players available if the team was willing to spend some money |
| 142. By: baseballman on 06-07-2011 20:09:17 2009 Draft regarding Franklin: 128. By: Blowgun7 on 06-09-2009 19:17:31 Damnit!! 146. By: Blowgun7 on 06-09-2009 19:20:46 Unbelievable.. These fucks passed on Stassi, Davidson, Wheeler, and a host of high quality arms for this reach pick. Makes me sick. And it will only get worse when we see them overdraft Barron in 20 minutes 153. By: Blowgun7 on 06-09-2009 19:22:49 We would have been better off not taking Ackley if it means we could have actually gotten two Top 27 talents... Instead of Ackley and a major reach http://prospectinsider.com/view/with-the-no.-2-pick,-the-seattle-mariners-select.../ 2010 Draft regarding Walker: 93. By: Blowgun7 on 06-07-2010 21:26:04 Knew they would screw that up. 98. By: Blowgun7 on 06-07-2010 21:29:32 This is a terrible pick and at best won't help us for many years. Don't know the rationale for passing on an Allie or Workman. Not to mention a Jackson or Castellanos 105. By: Blowgun7 on 06-07-2010 21:40:20 Bottomline, there were top tier prep bats available. There were better prep arms available, who have a higher chance at success and a faster timetable. I don't like anything I've read about this kid. He has a good fastball and little else right now. Could have easily been had with their next pick. Can't believe they passed on Castellanos. http://prospectinsider.com/view/draft-rumors/ There are more, but you get the picture. I was not exaggerating anything, in fact I was giving you the benefit of the doubt. But you are clearly not happy with either pick. |
| 143. By: Blowgun7 on 06-07-2011 20:09:46 BTW, what's up with Walker getting pulled after two innings tonight? That can't be a good thing. |
| 144. By: Blowgun7 on 06-07-2011 20:15:07 Haha, that's pretty bad.. Nevertheless, don't see the upside in the the 2nd - 5th rounders in comparison to what those drafts ended up yielding.. Those two kids were high schoolers, so they definitely can make a fan or scout look bad.. I just don't think our 2nd-5th rounders this year don't bring that type of potential.. I think we pretty much know what we'll get... And I shouldn't include Cron in that statement because the bat may be legit enough to play everyday |
| 145. By: Blowgun7 on 06-07-2011 20:25:06 That's actually a refreshing reminder baseballfan.. Those guys I mentioned were supposed to be the studs who had dropped due to being tough signs.. The majority of those dudes have been disappointing to date.. Maybe we put too much stock into these pre-draft rating systems. I still don't like our draft in large part because I'm not a big Hultzen fan, but that 2nd round and on is probably a big crap shoot, even in a deep draft like this one |
| 146. By: ndcohn on 06-07-2011 20:38:30 We don't know what we're talking about. We're just regurgitating the insights of 5 or 6 draft analysts. There are clearly differing opinions. After all, the Mariners didn't think this was the worst draft ever. Everytime the Mariners pick someone, just pretend like TMac has Keith Law's job and published an effusive scouting report: Hultzen is as great as whoever this is says: http://scoutingthesally.com/2011-mlb-draft-prospect-danny-hultzen-sp-virginia/ Brad Miller has the tools to stay at short stop, has a plus hit tool! (which was said over at scout.com) Franklin has underrated power and hit tool! Walker flashes a plus-curve, projectable, has ace upside! Baron's good for some reason [insert whatever he would have said!] And all were the best player available! Imagine how different the tenor of these discussions would be.... BEST DRAFT EVER! When the M's and internet agree, I'm happy. When the internet commentators and the M's disagree, I'll wait and see, and I'll avoid making ridiculous claims about how we blew the draft and how I know all of this great stuff that the M's were so dumb to miss because, why aren't they reading Keith Law! I love this stuff and I read all of these draft blogs, but lets have a little skepticism. |
| 147. By: Wes45 on 06-07-2011 21:50:00 #146. Absolutely brilliant! Probably worth noting that if all of the pundits were so infallible and all knowing, they would probably be sitting in the big boy seats making picks as opposed to throwing stones from the sidelines. |
| 148. By: rocketdawg31 on 06-07-2011 22:16:10 Jason- are there any other high-ceiling names that still have yet to be picked? My own personal list is exhausted with Dillon Maples going to the Cubs. I'm not gonna poo-poo this draft (yet)- I know it's a matter of wait and see, no matter what. But I haven't really seen us take a chance yet on a kid that could be a difficult sign- by drafting them lower than what their talent says they would go, if all things held equal. Are there still guys worth rolling the dice on, IYO? Guys that should be late Day 1-early Day 2 as far as talent goes? Your list doubtless is more extensive than mine. Here's to hoping for a dynamic Day Three. |
| 149. By: Edman on 06-08-2011 00:24:23 For the record, James Paxton is off to a fair start, but as good as his strikeout rate is, his walk rate is alarming. I would rate Hultzen's ceiling higher than Paxton by quite a distance. He's fooling kids at low A ball. Impressive, but could he fool hitters at AAA? And he walks a batter for every two strikeouts. I do believe it was Jason who said that Paxton many end up being a reliever in the majors, at some point. In case you missed it, Hultzen was second in the nation in strikeouts.....and pay close attention.....walked only 7 batters. You don't think that's good enough to play in the majors? Hultzen will be in at the top of Seattle's prospect list, right now, while Paxton may barely get out of the teens. |
| 150. By: slamcactus on 06-08-2011 00:34:15 For the record, many of us who are less than thrilled with Hultzen (though as I said before, I don't hate the pick, I'm more or less blah on it) really liked the Walker pick. On draft day last year he had upside at least comparable to everyone on the board except maybe Castellanos, but only cost $800k to sign. It was a very good pick the day they made it. You can't get a sure thing bat with a pick in the mid-40s (and the consensus top bat available, Castellanos, has done absolutely nothing to make me wish the Ms had broken the bank to give him his top-10 $), so the combination of ceiling and pricetag made it an excellent choice. Hultzen's very different. He doesn't have a low ceiling, but he doesn't have a super high one either. And he won't be cheap. At all. Decent pick, but not the kind of pick that you can expect to produce a face of the franchise type player. I'd rather have some more upside to dream on, but I'm not gonna get too broke up over it. |
| 151. By: slamcactus on 06-08-2011 00:35:43 "I would rate Hultzen's ceiling higher than Paxton by quite a distance." I'd say they're closer to equal on ceiling - maybe slight edge to Hultzen, but Hultzen's got waaaaaaaaaay more polish. He's a much better prospect than Paxton. |
| 152. By: Edman on 06-08-2011 00:44:18 Agreed, slam. Paxton will only become an elite prospect if he can command the strikezone. Right now, he's a lefthanded Fields. Strikes out a ton, and walks half a ton. |
| 153. By: safecochatter on 06-08-2011 01:13:40 143...this tweet by walker a little while ago ... tai_walker only got 2 innings today not hurt, just back sore from sleeping on it wrong. should be good to go to tomorrow and get ready for sunday! |
| 154. By: FWBrodie on 06-08-2011 01:59:03 142: Epic post. 149: Hultzen walked 17 batters last season, not 7. Paxton struck out 115 and walked only 20 his junior year. That argument holds about as much water as the Cleveland Indians' roof. |
| 155. By: Edman on 06-08-2011 02:38:27 When Paxton can get back to that level, I'll consider his ceiling. I hope for the Mariner's sake, he does. |
| 156. By: FWBrodie on 06-08-2011 03:21:05 Edman, I have a question for you. Do you ever stop and think before you click "Submit Comment", "Is this really worthy of space on a comment board? Does this offer anything new to the conversation? Do I have any idea what I'm talking about?", or do you just love seeing "Edman" on top of a pile of words? I mean, I believe you're a smart guy and pretty informed overall, but god damn you spend a lot of words on very little worthwhile information. Cut the fat, take a second and think before you just start typing, maybe cross check your facts, let others speak first once in a while, and when in doubt "silence never makes mistakes." |
| 157. By: rjfrik on 06-08-2011 11:19:31 In my opinion most of us are crying over nothing. The draft didn't work out exactly like we wanted, including myself. But A rotation of Felix, Pineda, Hultzen and Paxton is going to be deadly. Hultzen IS that good. 2 righties and 2 lefties. If we can add 2 nice bats in the next two years to go along with Ackley (who is simply tearing the cover off the ball - why isn't he up yet - Jesus). We will be a very tough out in the playoffs. This pick, in my opinion, no matter what JZ and company say, was geared for that playoff run in 2013. Hultzen immediately becomes our 3rd best pitcher, in my opinion. He's no slouch. |
| 158. By: Edman on 06-08-2011 12:50:05 Brodie, I thank you for your false concern, but you can always ignore my comments. I'm sorry if I missed adding a "1" in front of the seven. If I had any idea that it would upset you so much, I would have spent valuable work time to meet your high standards. I guess it totally taints the discussion because I mistyped "17". That entirely changed the point, didn't it? Damn, he's a control risk....I'm so sorry for offending yoru senses. The masses of other posters who took issue with it, I apologize as well. Thank you again, Brodie. If it wasn't for someone like you to police this board, what would we do? |
| 159. By: FWBrodie on 06-08-2011 16:42:58 Edman, the incorrect number was only half of what was wrong with your post and only a tiny fraction of why you are annoying. People come here to learn from Jason Churchill's thumb on the Mariner pulse and instead are forced dig through your mountains of dribble. You bring nothing to the table but flapping gums. I for one would appreciate it if you could dial it back. |
| 160. By: Edman on 06-08-2011 18:44:13 Brodie, what's wrong with your post, is deciding what's wrong with mine. Since when is it your job to decide what is good content, and what is bad? You fully believe that your post was somehow instructional, rather than a personal attack, because my thoughts don't match yours? What makes your thoughts so special? Nobody forced you to read a single word, you chose to. If you think I'm full of it, then ignore them. It's that simple. We don't have to agree with each other, I often see the other side of things. It's not fair to challenge people when they make statements? I don't mind being challenged, if it's not personal. I've known Jason probably longer than you have. Long before there was a Prospect Insider. We agree on a lot more than we disagree. I accept that I don't always take the "touchy-feely" approach to my posts. But, it doesn't mean that either of us won't question each other. He's like all of us here. Sometimes, emotions get injected in our thoughs. It's human. There is nobody on the internet that I appreciate more than Jason, including Keith Law. He's earned my respect over the years. But to imply that this is a place to come follow at his alter, much like USSM and Dave Cameron, would be false. What makes this place so special in that regard, is that Jason allows everyone to share their feelings. Would you prefer a board like USSM where they censor out any non-praising posts? The real drivel, in my estimation, is that some feel that only those who share their opinions and don't question the status quo are welcome. That, IMO, would be more tragic than the alternate point of view. That should give you another mountain to dig a tunnel through. Now, shall we both stop? |
| 161. By: FWBrodie on 06-08-2011 22:50:07 That's just it. You think you have a worthwhile opinion and that you "question the status quo." Wrong. You go to another website and read a scouting report that doesn't line up with the one Jason provided and fall in love with the idea of being the guy that disagrees. Wow, impressive. None of that was your own opinion, it was agreeing "with the status quo" on a different site. We're all capable of doing the same thing. That isn't the point. The point is you tell us all Paxton is a reliever and Hultzen is Cole Hamels based on what other people have said and yet you state it as if it is not only fact, but as a self realized fact based on your scouting ability. You're full of shit and you talk too much. Discussion is a good thing, but you speak too big for your britches. Be a little more humble, realistic, open minded and try asking a question once in a while instead of speaking as if your words are gospel... because they are not. They're garbage. |
| 162. By: Edman on 06-09-2011 14:25:03 I was going to drop this, but not before I correct your statements about me. First off, DO NOT comment on what I do and where I get my information, because you're very wrong. I visit many websites, but I don't canvas them looking for alternate scouting reports. So, when you did a report in school, you only relied on one reference book? I haven't fallen in love with being the guy who disagrees. But, I do call BS when people only take one narrow view and consider nothing else. If you care to be a sheep, you can run to USSM and they'll quickly eliminate any poster who disagrees with the status quo. Then, you won't have to worry about me or anyone else having a different opinion. Secondly, I have NEVER compared Hultzen to Cole Hamels, EVER. So don't put somebody else's words in my mouth. Thirdly, I NEVER said that Paxton IS a reliever. I recalled that Jason once said that may be his ultimate destination. I hope he dramatically cuts his strikezone down and stop walking a ton of hitters a game, so he can become a starter. Who wouldn't? You may think what I say is garbage, and I won't be offended. Why should I, you can't even get the facts straight in a rebuttal? I speak way too big for my britches, do I? And you know this because you know much more than I? If that's what you believe, enjoy yourself. |
| 163. By: ajhedglin on 06-10-2011 14:48:06 Oh snap! Lol. I don't think I have ever commented on content before, but I guess that is how I lose my virginity. Oh well, is what it is... |
Haven't created a Prospect Insider account yet? Sign up!
|
|
 |
|
|
| Copyright 2010 Prospect Insider | Created by AQ Central Prospect Insider is optimized for Mozilla Firefox and Google Chrome |