| By Jason A. Churchill |  | By 06-11-2011 |
Podcast Alert: Click here for the Draft Recap Episode
The dust has cleared as we enter day five since the Seattle Mariners made the No. 2 overall selection in the 2011 First-Year Players Draft. I've made several calls, sent several texts and emails and gathered as much info as I possibly could on all 51 players the club selected this week so I could complete the analysis, and as a result, here's the Draft Report Card.
Round 1 (No. 2)
Selecting Virginia LHP Danny Hultzen this high appears to be an attempt to get a solid player with high probability into the system, despite the lack of star upside. The M's passed on potential superstar talents in RHP Dylan Bundy, CF Bubba Starling and star-level talents such as SS Francisco Lindor.
If the club wants to win championships they need championship players, superstars, at least one or two that play regularly and they simply do not have that in the entire organization right now. They had a shot to add that Monday, but steered clear.
One thing to remember is that there is a chance that Starling or Bundy would have been the pick but the club didn't get good indications that the player would sign for what they were willing to spend. And those indications could have been given for many reasons, including driving up the price to get as much money as possible, or scaring off the Mariners so the player gets to a team more coveted by the advisor and/or player. Bundy's brother plays in the O's system and Starling is from Kansas.
Even in terms of organization need, the M's didn't address their biggest weakness -- impact hitters at the infield and outfield corners.
The Mariners, however, may have accomplished one very critical thing by taking Hultzen: The chance that the club gets little to nothing out of this pick are minuscule, while Starling and Lindor, and to a slightly lesser extent Bundy, come with pseudo-quantifiable risk attached.
Grade: B
Round 2 (No. 62)
Miller would have to stick at shortstop or hit enough to be an above-average regular second baseman or centerfielder to warrant the No. 62 overall pick in the deepest draft in at least a decade, and I'm not sure Miller has much of a shot to do any of that.
One scout I asked Wednesday thought Miller would make a fantastic utility player, and several others called him "a backup," and one called him "Craig Counsell in so many ways." The Counsell comment starts because of his setup at the plate -- his hands start very high -- but the overall talent is similar, though Counsell moves a little better laterally and has a better arm, though not as strong.
Coastal Carolina right-hander Anthony Meo, who has a decent chance to develop into a No. 2 starter, was still on the board, as was Oregon State catcher Andrew Susac, Searcy High School right-hander Dillon Howard, Daniel Norris from Science Hill High School and Puerto Rico star prepster Jorge Lopez, among others. Susac is a signability risk, but there's little chance he commands more than $2-2.5 million as a draft-eligible sophomore.
The grade below doesn't reflect Miller's individual abilities, only the selection at No. 62, because there were better talent available and Miller may very well -- some say absolutely -- would have been there in round 3.
Grade: D+
Round 3 (No. 92)
Kevin Cron is as one-dimensional as any prospect selected in the Top 100, which makes it odd that this is the pick I like the most among those in the first four or five rounds.
Despite the lack of secondary tools, Cron possesses the most impactful tool in the box and while he wasn't the best talent on the board at 92, he may have been the best signable talent, as Johnny Eierman may cost first-round money and Matt Purke may be headed for shoulder surgery for all we know at this point.
Grade: B-
Round 3B (No. 121)
Carter Capps could be the steal of the draft on the M's end as the arm is close to premium and he's yet to turn 21. He's 6-foot-5 and 220 pounds and with some mechanical adjustments could remain a starter.
There weren't any clearcut better better talents on the board -- at least that appear signable (that doesn't mean those that fell due to signability will not sign, but the risk can be prohibitive) -- and Capps is as signable any player without a pre-draft deal taken in the top 5 rounds.
Grade: B+
Round 4 (No. 123)
John Hicks can hit some but the defense is questionable and he doesn't profile well offensively anywhere else on the field. This may have been where I popped a Charlie Lowell or taken the chance that Nick Delmonico would take my $2 million to pass on school.
It's not a poor selection, it's just one without much upside or high probability attached. The savior is that the
upside it does carry is as a catcher.
Grade: C
Round 5 (No. 153)
Tyler Marlette could have been LHP Cody Kukuk or OF Ben Roberts, or Lowell or Delmonico, but like Hicks at least the risk is taken on a catcher.
Marlette also has good raw power and if the swing can be fixed and he develops even average plate skills he could be a solid find as a hard-working backstop with a good arm and solid footwork.
Grade: B+
Rounds 6-10
Right-hander Carson Smith (Rd. 8) and SS Cavan Cohoes (Rd. 9) are the best picks in this range, though Steve Proscia Rd. 7) is interesting, especially if he can stay at third base, though that's very questionable.
Smith could be a 7th or 8th inning arm within a couple years and Cohoes has some upside to his game, including a chance to stick at shortstop.
The M's would get a better grade here if there were more prep kids with athleticism selected. I am true believer in upside in these rounds, especially since I also invest in my own theory that 17-18 year old talents change more athletically between their high school days and the age of 23 or 24 when players get to the age of a rookie big leaguer that the more of them you have the better chance at a major league contributor.
That theory comes from studying players were drafted outside the upper rounds (after round 3 and were never expected to drafted much higher than that) that became much more well-regarded players after three years of college.
Grade: B
Rounds 11-20
I love the pick of Nick Valenza, a 5-foot-9, 185-pound relief prospect that throws a biting curveball and already sits 88-91 consistently. Shorten that up out of the pen and the chance he sits low-90s or better are fair, and getting a major-league quality situational reliever at pick No. 543 is pretty good.
Catcher Jack Marder in round 16 is a solid get, especially since he has college experience and has flashed good skills behind the plate. Michael Dowd, round 11, is only 5-foot-8, but he's over 200 pounds and has a tremendous arm, the best in the class outside a couple of pitchers.
Guarnaccia, an 18-year-old JC freshman, is a switch-hitting catcher with some raw skills that may not sign unless he gets a bonus, something most 19th rounders do not get.
Grade: A
Rounds 21-50
Not a lot to say here, since few selections this late turn out to be major leaguers let alone impact players, but I do like the 34th round pick Taylor Brennan, who screams center field for me, and he reminds me a bit of A.J. Pollock athletically, a former infielder-turned-centerfielder now in the Arizona Diamondbacks organization.
Grade: B+
Overall
The Mariners drafted very little upside before round 5, rarely selected the best player available -- and in rounds 1 and 2, there's little to zero room for debate, and did not address their biggest needs. They filled some holes in their farm system positionally and piled up on college players with good makeup.
If they get the top 20 rounds all under contract, it's a fringe-average draft class, and I am a little bit disturbed that it appears GM Jack Zduriencik and/or other front office executives influenced the No. 2 pick.
You read that correctly -- I do not believe that scouting director Tom McNamara had full autonomy, despite anything and everything that has been said or written to the contrary (seriously, would you expect them to say anything different?) over the No. 2 pick, possibly not even 62 and beyond.
Grade: C-
m\'s-draft-report-card
Comments
The following 55 comment(s) for this article are shown below:
| 1. By: rocketdawg31 on 06-11-2011 05:12:53 The name I'm most intrigued by besides Hultzen is Tyler Marlette. I was talking to my buddy (you know him as 'lightbat' on here) about this draft, he was asking what I thought. Basically, what I said to him was "Overall, a draft class that stands a good chance of adding solid organizational depth, and one where we'll see how good it was sooner rather than later due to so many college draftees. But not likely to produce a slew of high-impact players." As near as I can tell, the grade confirms that li'l notion. And not to stir up a hornet's nest, Jason- but you know? The more I think of Danny Hultzen (and if he maxes out, I'll be glad to have him- especially if he maxes as quick as some say he can), the more I think "Just doesn't seem like a McNamara-style pick". If McNamara stands at the trigger-button all alone, do you think he tabs Lindor? |
| 2. By: bakomariner on 06-11-2011 10:16:13 Jason, I think you do a tremendous job here. I've been a subscriber for years and appreciate all the time and enegery you put into making prospect lists, covering the prospects and covering the draft. And I know that all us fans wanted you to grade the draft, but to play "devil's advocate" we won't really know for year how this draft was. I understand your process of grading the draft based on what the Mariners could/should have done, but for now I'm just going to sit back and wait. We don't know who will sign or won't...not only for the Mariners but for all the teams. And hell, Hultzen might be the next Cliff Lee while Starling goes to the NFL, Bundy rips his arm off, Lindor becomes a bust, and Rendon never gets healthy. Or Hultzen could take his 20 million trust fund and go to medical school...we just never know. Again, I love the work you do and respect your sources and your knowledge to the fullest, but I'm gonna wait a few years to really create my own opinion. |
| 3. By: baseballman on 06-11-2011 10:23:14 Awesome stuff and great job for all the draft coverage JAC. I do have 2 questions regarding the #2 and #62 picks and Jack and Tom. In a hypothetical, let's say Tom did have Starling/Lindor #1. It appears like Rendon's medicals were not up to snuff, so no way to add a bat there. If Jack felt that the Ms couldn't get one of the HS guys signed, doesn't he have to step in? He's more on the line, kind of, than the scouting department. If the Ms draft Starling, but can't sign him, that's on Jack, correct? Do you know if this was the circumstance? I can't imagine Jack getting cold feet and wanting to jump the gun and draft the closest ML player, that's not his MO. And he's constantly labeled as a "reacher" My second question is, if you think Tom was trumped during the #2 pick, was he also for #62? Or any other pick? If Miller was a Tom pick, I would have to give him the benefit of the doubt that Tom saw something that says that Miller will stick at SS. |
| 4. By: bakomariner on 06-11-2011 10:26:16 On a different note, I took my two-week old son to the Clinton Lumberkings game last night 1) so seeing a "Mariners" game would be his first ever game and not the Cubs game we are going to next month and 2) so I could see James Paxton pitch live before he gets called up. He has made the all-star game on the 21st, which I am going to, but his overall numbers aren't what we would hope for. He struck out a few guys, but was often behind in the count and when he was hit, he was hit HARD. They were really squaring up on him. Jason, do you have any info. on what the organization has planned for him? Will he be getting called up a level or two anytime soon? Is there reason to worry that he isn't dominating at such a low level? Thanks! |
| 5. By: TXMariner on 06-11-2011 10:43:24 From what I understand, Hultzen didn't focus on pitching until fairly recently and his velocity has showed a marked increase over the past year. Could it be that Tom and Jack believe he has more upside than others give him credit for? |
| 6. By: bakomariner on 06-11-2011 11:12:07 Virginia is playing on ESPNU in an hour...not sure if Hultzen is pitching...but I will be watching to see our 3 future Mariners! |
| 7. By: CoachOwens on 06-11-2011 11:43:10 I'm not a scout nor do I have your resources, Jason, but I've read a ton about these players on different sites (MLB.com, BA, Baseball Prospectus, ESPN, etc.) and from what I've read, Lindor doesn't have a ton of upside either. He's a decent pick around where he was picked, but he would have been a huge reach at #2. As for Starling, I guess the Mariners' front office just decided that he wasn't worth the risk, even with the ceiling that he has. I'm positive that Z and co. made the pick they did entirely because of job security, but I'm also sure that it played a part of it. Z already has a tightened leash after last season so the last thing he would want is to have the #2 overall pick that he received because of it fail out of pro ball. Not to mention the price tag that Starling will have. Bundy's really in the same boat. Yes he probably has the highest upside of any pitcher in the draft, but he's years and years away and he's certainly not a sure thing. After all, why do front offices like college pitchers in the first place? Finally-and again, this is what I've only read, mind you-it's not like Hultzen doesn't have a lot of potential himself. There's a reason why most of these places regarded him as usually a top five prospect. Not only is he the closest to the majors, but if everything goes right he's Cliff Lee, if everything goes wrong, he's still a very good third starter or an outstanding fourth starter. If just some of the things go right, he's a very good #2, which certainly isn't a bad thing. I'd, personally, give it an A- grade. |
| 8. By: marinermutt on 06-11-2011 11:50:44 Jason, Thanks for all your work on the draft and the other content you bring to this site. Regarding your comment on Tom and Jack, what makes you say that it wasn't all Tom's pick at 2 and 62 pick. Is it a hunch on your part of is it something that someone told you. Just trying to get the perspective of where you are coming from. Thanks, |
| 9. By: bakomariner on 06-11-2011 12:04:46 Danny Hultzen is pitching right now...check him out! |
| 10. By: jazon_24 on 06-11-2011 12:05:51 "Virginia is playing on ESPNU in an hour...not sure if Hultzen is pitching...but I will be watching to see our 3 future Mariners!" Hultzen is starting today! |
| 11. By: bakomariner on 06-11-2011 12:11:00 Off to a bad start though... |
| 12. By: safecochatter on 06-11-2011 12:55:20 I'm thinking this draft was all about the money. you can't spend 95% of your budget on pick #1. 2011 draft is so much like the 09 draft where the M's picked the 5'6" 139 pound catcher Steve Baron. In the 2010 draft Tom and Jack didn't have the top 5 pick and did a much better draft.took more chances. as long as the cuurent fo is in place,get used to it. but on the other hand,with better teams the M's shouldn't be picking in the top 5 any more anyway. Jason's point is well taken. I have no doubt Tom didn't draft the player he wanted.. Thanks for the time sink Jason! |
| 13. By: ripperlv on 06-11-2011 13:27:01 I don't know how, I don't know why (to use Geoff Baker justification) but somehow this all works into the M's making a run at Prince Fielder. Wishful thinking. |
| 14. By: Timberwolf on 06-11-2011 13:39:14 Hultzen pitching and getting an RBI single on ESPNU, currently in a lightning delay. Announcers were commenting on him getting the job done pitching without his best stuff and being a legitimate threat on the basepaths. |
| 15. By: Edman on 06-11-2011 13:41:25 I'm thinking that there is a lot of speculation. Every year, someone is upset with the draft. They did this, they didn't do that. Ultimately, it's Jack's call, but I doubt that he'd completely overrule Tom's and his scouting department's hard work. Certainly there are factors. As much as I might like Bubba Starling for his upside, there is a lot of risk in taking him. He comes with two obstacles, the huge chunk of money he'll demand, and the possibility he could go to college, which may be the choice of his family. They Royals have a chance to sign him because he's from that area. I think for all the speculation, there is a high probability that there is some truth in all of it, but little chance that there is any one answer. However, I think it's a big stretch to assume Jack did it to save his job. He doesn't appear by his actions to really give a damn about pandering to other people's expectations. If so, then Rendon would have been his pick. How much more popular could he be, had he chosen him instead of Hultzen? Ironically, back when Moneyball was the rage, the idea of taking high school players over those with college experience was the rage. It all depends on perspective. I'm neither overly excited or drastically concerned. I've learned over time that fussing over "could have, should have, would have" isn't much worth it. Some of the names we rave about today will get lost in the foder. And, some we didn't give much thought to, will develop beyond expectations. In two years, we'll have a better idea about this draft. It's the scouting department's job to find diamonds in the rough. That's what they're paid to do, out scoop the other scouts. |
| 16. By: Talkbaseball on 06-11-2011 13:42:16 If this game is any indication of expectations for Hultzen then JC is spot on and this is a huge reach. Fastball 89-92 with little command, cutter at 87, that is not even a plus arm. Have not seen any plus off speed pitches. This pick reeks of Howie and Chuck meddling (win now & small budget) and is going to haunt us when several guys drafted below turn into stars. Of the top 8 Hultzen was the only guy I had no interest in, this is why the M's are destined for destitute and nothing will change until new upper management is brought in. |
| 17. By: Edman on 06-11-2011 13:51:32 Talkbaseball.....it isn't. No more than Garrit Cole's an overdraft at #1. It's one game, and no more. And PLEASEEEEEEEEEEEE stop the Chuck and Howard shit. It's old, lame and pathetic. And, for the record, those two DO NOT SET THE BUDGET. That's done by their bosses. Some insist on beating a dead horse, and it gets beyond paranoia. |
| 18. By: krob4mvp on 06-11-2011 13:55:02 Jason, Thanks for all your due diligence and hard work throughout this entire process. These write-ups and scouting reviews are why I pay my monthly fees. I get the feeling you are a bit disappointed with the organization this year especially since this draft was quality deep. Hopefully one or more of these prospects will surprise and fulfill some untapped potential. Thanks again |
| 19. By: Talkbaseball on 06-11-2011 14:04:28 Dude Cole's 95-97 consistently with plus secondary offerings there is no comparison to Hultzen. Stop with the caps man, no wonder you are so popular on this site. People are entitled to their opinions and while yes I understand its only one game, based on that game this looks like a big reach. Howie and Chuck pushed Bavasi into some bad decisions with win now mentality, who's to say that isn't their current approach. |
| 20. By: ghill_3406 on 06-11-2011 14:11:25 JAC: Anyone that saw Miller all year knows how athletic he is and that he can stay as SS. Will he play SS for the M's? Probably not, because the M's spend too much money in Latin America and will most likely fill the SS position there. But, he is so athletic that he can play SS, 2B, 3B or CF and is a LH bat that has a chance to hit .300 for a long time. Area scouts that use Craig Counsell as a comp aren't doing their job correctly. Does he set up in the box like Craig Counsell? Somewhat. But the comparison stops there. Plus, it was guy they really wanted and he was definitely not going to get to them at pick 92. As for the other guys you mentioned they should take. There are reasons they liked Miller more: Susac: Not worth the money he was coveting being a DE Soph. They probably can get him in the 2012 draft. Meo: Is a surefire reliever in pro ball. Far from a #2 starter!!!! He has 2 pitches with bad arm action. You don't take relievers with the #62 pick. Howard: Is a terd, with bad makeup that wants to go to school. Why would you give a guy the money Howard is asking if he wants to go to school anyway. Norris: $3.9 mill asking price screams "I want to go to school, but if I get this money, I'll sign." Pro ball is not easy. You want guys that want to be there. Sorry JAC. I respect your opinion, but please talk to more than just a few area scouts before you judge a draft 3 days after the draft has passed. Some fans really rely on your opinion, so please get more credible info, or even better, watch the guys yourself for more than just 1 game. |
| 21. By: Timberwolf on 06-11-2011 14:24:07 Howard & Chuck are dead weight who pull salaries, contribute nothing, and alienate the fans. It is long since time for them to go. I seriously doubt that either of them could pick Danny Hultzen out of a police line-up. I do think they get credited with doing a lot more "work" than they actually do. |
| 22. By: Talkbaseball on 06-11-2011 14:39:18 On Miller, I like the swing and athleticism and Crone offers plus plus power. No complaints on rounds two or three, I just believe we needed more upside with the second overall pick because who knows when will have the opportunity again. Any Cole Hamels comps are crazy, similar fastballs but the secondary offers are not even close. |
| 23. By: Adam P. Boyd on 06-11-2011 14:51:20 safecochatter - 5'6" 139 pound catcher Steve Baron ??? Ha, wtf? |
| 24. By: Lailoken on 06-11-2011 15:47:19 One thing that stands out about this draft is the that the majority of the position players are up the middle. 7 catchers (counting Tresgallo), 2 shortstops, 3 second basemen, & 4 center fielders. Compare that to I slightly disagree with JAC on the need for corner infielders & outfielders. On the lower levels players like Pimintel, Castillo, M. Peguero, & Morales are a very good start on getting some power bats on the corners. I'm assuming Peguero ends up at 3B. Calderon & Brito are showing some serious pop down in summer leagues already too. Plus Choi may end up at 1B, though I hope he can stick at cathcer like I hope Peguero sticks at short. Cron, Proscia, Paolini, & Brennan all have power & could end up in a corner spot someday. The org depth is alright in the corners. While none are surefire stars Chavez, Raben, Poythress, Liddi, C. Peguero, Jones, Tenbrink, Carp, Halman, Mangini, Catricala, Morban, Wiswall, & Blash have some potential to be solid regulars. Littlewood & Triunful may end up at the hot corner too. Getting cost-controlled talent at premium positions is smart. Finding a 3B, LF, or DH is easier to do than finding a SS, CF, or C. The Mariners do need to find a solution soon on the MLB-level for at least one of the three dead holes in their lineup: 3B, LF, & DH. If they address one of those spots with a major signing or trade I'd be please. By major I mean pulling in a superstar or someone who can develop into a star. More than one would be super gravy. Hultzen, Walker, Paxton, Campos, Capps, Smith, & Pryor are a nice collection of recently acquired pitchers. Maybe GMZ can cash in Jason Vargas this July or this offseason in a package for another big piece. |
| 25. By: Lailoken on 06-11-2011 15:48:50 compare that to 3 1B, 2 3B, & 2 corner OFs. Heck even one of those 1B (Grifol's son) could be a pitcher. |
| 26. By: ddt58 on 06-11-2011 16:28:46 John Sickels disagrees on the Miller pick. He selected him in the compensation round in his shadow draft. |
| 27. By: Blowgun7 on 06-11-2011 16:32:19 Hultzen looked like Luke French today. I'll chalk that up to a bad day and nothing more (hopefully). |
| 28. By: Juan Valdez on 06-11-2011 17:17:26 I understand why there may have been signability concerns with Bundy and Starling, but I'm curious why Hultzen was favored over Bauer. More of a sure thing maybe? I was under the impression that many were favoring Bauer for the number one pick. Isn't he generally considered to be higher upside? |
| 29. By: slamcactus on 06-11-2011 17:28:32 24: you didn't really name any present top prospects in that laundry list. Yes, that list shows that we have a handful of interesting guys (some more than others), but so do most organizations. You don't really consider it an organizational strength until the guys have made the jump from interesting guys who are nice to have in the organization to true prospects who have a decent shot to become major leaguers. In terms of guys who are good bets to be future major league regulars, we're pretty strong up the middle with Ackley, Seager, and Franklin, but not so strong anywhere else. There's a very solid chance (won't put a percentage on it, won't say more likely than not, but a solid chance) that the system as constituted now won't produce a single big-league regular at 3B or corner OF. There are a good number of guys with potential at these positions, but none of them currently rate as very good prospects. |
| 30. By: safecochatter on 06-11-2011 18:37:16 23 i watched baron walk into a spring training game with the team. i thought he was a ball boy...no kidding! i don't care what the m's say his size is. he looks like 5'6" about 139 compared to the rest of the team. one major league hit at the plate and you could just call the county coroner's office to come get him.. |
| 31. By: rjfrik on 06-11-2011 20:13:11 Re: 20. Ghill are you Miller? Because I've never seen a single person more on one guys jock as you are this kid. It's multiple threads now. I've watched him on TV a couple of times and some video and I completely agree with what Jason and the area scouts are seeing and saying. Looking forward to Jason's rebuttal. |
| 32. By: Edman on 06-11-2011 20:33:48 Timberwolf, I have no problem with showing Howie and Chuck the door. I just get tired of people blaming everything they don't like, on them, especially the draft. You can blame them for a lot of things, but being responsible for the budget isn't one of them. They get a budget from the ownership group. All they can do is present a case. If the ownership isn't willing to spend money, there is nothing they can do. It's like blaming your supervisor because he laid you off, when it was decided by the Vice President. And as far as Bavasi giving in to pressure to win and making a bad selection in the draft, that's his own damn fault, not Chowie's. Jack does not give me any sort of impression that he'd let either of them tell him how to draft. I don't see him as a yes man. |
| 33. By: rjfrik on 06-11-2011 23:00:17 Have to agree with edman there. I do thinly this draft was all JZ. I think he can feel a little heat from hot seat right now. This is his first GM gig and he doesn't want to lose it. This decision, be it right or wrong, came from him and him alone, not from above. This is my opinion of course, but it seems like the right opinion to me. I don't see the higher UPS meddlingin this.seems like jack needed to pick someone that will contribute to a playoff run sooner rather then later and Hultzen does that |
| 34. By: Faceplant on 06-12-2011 03:35:45 Jason, I've heard you say more than once that you thought that Jack ran this draft, and not Tom. What, specifically, leads you to that conclusion? |
| 35. By: johnfree on 06-12-2011 05:48:04 I guess this is more a group question then a question to Jason since I don't think he would want to give up info that's going to be in the Mid-Season Top 30. The question is- is Danny Hultzen the top prospect in the Mariners Farm System going into next year? I think we can assume Hultzen is going to sign (wouldn't that be a clusterf#ck if he didn't)and Ackley is going to be called up. I'm just curious because Jason implied (feel free to correct me if I got this wrong)that whoever the M's select at #2 would be the top prospect in the system. I just have a hard time believing Hultzen will be the teams best prospect. |
| 36. By: slamcactus on 06-12-2011 11:19:53 As long as the velo drop is temporary Hultzen's the #1 prospect. I we're going a bit far on the hating on this pick. He was a consensus top 5-6 guy and reportedly one of three guys Pitt was considering seriously with 1-1. He's a very good prospect, and I'd definitely take himm over Franklin. Unless E. Peguero goes nuts on the Appy league or something Hultzen's the top guy in the system behind Ackley. |
| 37. By: FWBrodie on 06-12-2011 13:15:21 Jason, can you think of a reason why Ackley has stopped trying to steal bases? He attempted 6 in April, then a few at the beginning of May, and then just stopped cold-turkey. Could he be dealing with an injury? Seems like now would be the right time to be working on that skill. |
| 38. By: Lailoken on 06-12-2011 13:44:32 29: Slam, I don't view Seager as a regular & would think that Chavez, Jones, M. Peguero, Pimentel, & Castillo all have better shots at sticking as MLB regulars. Raben & Poythress look like DHs but maybe Raben's knee improves enough, some guys do recover from microfracture surgery. I'm a bit skeptical about Halman, C. Peguero, & Carp though all are young enough to improve quite a bit. Halman can be a premium defender too which works to his advantage. Admittedly the recent international kids are higher-ceiling low-floor guys that are far away from the bigs but there's still a lot of talent there. M. Peguero, Pimentel, & Castillo were big-bonus signees for good reason. We needed catchers & center fielders. No one in the system is projected as a MLB-regular at those spots. We drafted plenty of both. Shortstops are premium & while the reports on Miller make me hesitate if he can stick there & swing a decent lefty bat there's value. Cohoes might be my favorite pick of the draft for similar upside at such a key spot. Drafting Cron, Proscia, & Paolini in the first ten rounds helped address some of the corner spots. Obviously, top talents who project as big-league regulars cannot be tabbed in every round. I would've liked to see more obvious overslot bonus types but the position-distribution is fine IMO. Drafting for premium positions early is defensible. I am much more inclined than you to believe some of the international kids who signed for big money will pan out. They were signed as free market players with the expectation that they are serious talents one would think. Otherwise, it was a waste of resources. |
| 39. By: 01v-dubs on 06-12-2011 17:22:24 I noticed Ackley isn't in the lineup for Tacoma tonight, might he possibly be getting called up for the LAA series? Have you heard anything about that Jason? |
| 40. By: FWBrodie on 06-12-2011 17:35:34 Word from Curto is that he's played every game this season and is just fatigued. |
| 41. By: Adam T on 06-12-2011 18:51:58 ghill - I'm curious who YOU have talked to so as to form a scouting dossier that trumps Churchill's. What scouts have you been talking to? I hope some, because if you are simply relying on your own 'eye', then you are woefully outmatched. Quit pretending to be an expert scout and instead pay attention to the guy who actually does speak with expert scouts.... I hate how the internet creates so many phonies... |
| 42. By: ddt58 on 06-12-2011 19:05:52 Adam: Sickels likes Miller quite a bit, and complimented the selection. He certainly talks to scouts. So Jason's opinion, even if he turns out to be correct, isn't universal. |
| 43. By: Adam T on 06-12-2011 19:10:17 I didn't say anything about any sort of universality of consensus on Miller. |
| 44. By: Edman on 06-13-2011 04:30:32 It's easy to fall in love with the names that are hyped before the draft. I never get too upset, because I realize that there are going to be as many opinions. Which are the right ones? Nobody knows right now. We may be looking back in three years loving or hating these selections. But, there is no one way to do a draft. All that matters are the results of the draft, and right now, nobody knows. I remember names like Gordon, Maybin, et al. At the time, those were the names. And, Gordon is finally filling some of the promise everyone had for him. But, sometimes, success doesn't come right away. Grades are subjective. There is no answer sheet. We just have to hope that Jack and Tom followed the script that they created for this draft, and didn't waver. Nobody will ever know for sure, other than those in the draft room. |
| 45. By: slamcactus on 06-13-2011 11:02:26 "I don't view Seager as a regular & would think that Chavez, Jones, M. Peguero, Pimentel, & Castillo all have better shots at sticking as MLB regulars." You're overrating home run power. How many guys with these exact same profiles have we seen flame out? Those guys have more upside, but Seager's got a much better chance than any of them to be a regular. Seager's excelling at AA, and not as a slap-hitter, either. A third of his hits have gone for extra bases (the same number as Chavez's in the same league, btw), and he's shown an excellent approach. He's blocked at 2B and doesn't fit the prototype of a 3B, but he's a decent prospect. Bill Mueller was a very valuable player for several years, and Seager fits that profile really well, both offensively and defensively. "Admittedly the recent international kids are higher-ceiling low-floor guys that are far away from the bigs but there's still a lot of talent there. M. Peguero, Pimentel, & Castillo were big-bonus signees for good reason." Sure, so were Jharmidy De Jesus, Rayon Lampe, Mario Martinez, Miguel Marquez, Doug Salinas, Gabriel Noriega, Efrain Nunez, Robert Rodriguez, and the list goes on. They're nice to have in the system, and obviously I'm all about continuing to sign top guys out of Latin America. But you really don't know what you have with these guys until they've made it to full-season ball (which many of them don't). None of us has any idea what kind of prospect those three will become, if they even become prospects at all. They're wild cards, and counting them towards organizational strength at their positions is premature. "Raben & Poythress look like DHs but maybe Raben's knee improves enough, some guys do recover from microfracture surgery." Raben's 23, in A+, walks too rarely and strikes out too often, and the power he's showing even after a 3-homer effort is merely ok for his position and offensive environment. Poythress is the same age as Seager and performing considerably worse at the same level (and really not hitting for much more power), and their positional value doesn't compare. Raben and Poythress are both fringe prospects at best. I don't have a problem with the position distribution of the draftees. But i really don't agree that the system is "set" at any position except maybe 2B. Right now, this system is Ackley, Franklin, a trio of interesting arms (Hultzen/Walker/Paxton), a couple lower upside guys with polish, fringe guys in the high minors, and a whole lot of guys who might develop into prospects but aren't there yet. That's not bad, necessarily. In fact, it's pretty typical. But the system isn't stocked anywhere. |
| 46. By: Edman on 06-13-2011 11:44:12 I have to agree with slam, people tend to view homeruns as more important than they are. They are important, but players should not be undervalued because they don't project to have 20 HR power. That's one of the reasons I'm not upset with the Miller pick. Being the best hitter in a strong league has it's value. So what, he's not a stand out defender? Hitting is a tool as well. Would I be upset if he turned into what I consider his median prediction of Craig Counsell? Hell no, guys like that are valuable. Perhaps they aren't stars, but I would have no problem with Seager and Miller as roll players. Certainly wouldn't be the worse fate. And, with some work, Miller may become a decent shortstop. You can never have too many good shortstops. If not useful for the Mariners, they are highly sought in trade. I have yet to experience a draft where everyone was happy with who was drafted or a draft where the top five picks all met their projections. |
| 47. By: safecochatter on 06-13-2011 12:45:44 giant 2b sanchez down and maybe out for year. what a slick move for m's. jack wilson to giants for b prospect. drop a couple mill off payroll and bring up ackley..we can dream |
| 48. By: rjfrik on 06-13-2011 13:13:16 Sounds good to me safecochatter. Also, Slam I would add Truinfel to your list of Seager, Ackley and Franklin as far as having a solid core in the middle infield positions. Truinfel is really handling his own in AA and is, in my opinion, along with Seager, the best position player on that team right now. Shafer has really fell back to earth. In fact I could see both Truinfel and Seager called up to AAA this year and be ready for the show come 2013. Edman, I agree that a Craig Counsel type player holds value. But I think the distaste with the Miller pick has to do with value. In the deepest draft in a decade it was disheartening to draft a player that we could of had in the 3rd round or even with our 3rd round supplemental pick. He was a reach. I would of loved to grab him with one of our 3rd round picks and grab a higher upside guy with our 2nd round pick. There is a big lack of high upside guys in this draft and that's kind of a shame. |
| 49. By: baseballman on 06-13-2011 13:39:33 "In the deepest draft in a decade it was disheartening to draft a player that we could of had in the 3rd round or even with our 3rd round supplemental pick. He was a reach." I don't agree with this at all. Sure it's nice to believe that he'd be there in the 3rd, but you have no knowledge if that was the case. If he goes just one pick before our 3rd rounders, then the Mariners missed an opportunity to get their guy. I don't think there are reaches in baseball drafts. Teams can't move down and can't trade picks, so they need to get the players they want with the picks they have. If a player goes 25 spots too early, how is it a reach when a picks only has the one chance to draft them and then that player is off the board when their next pick rolls around? If Miller sticks at SS (which Jack and Tom obviously believe) then I believe he completely justifies the #62 pick. So saying he was a reach is saying you know without a doubt that he will be moved off of short. |
| 50. By: rjfrik on 06-13-2011 13:48:27 Baseballman it has been documented by Jason through front office people around the league and scouts that Miller would of been available in the third round. So by me saying that I'm just repeating not only what my belief was on Miller but what Jason has told us verbally. I think he would of been available in the third and I'm not alone on that thinking. The best way to draft in any sport is to draft for value and never reach. As people have said previously, maybe Jack had Miller overvalued and had to take him, but most of people think it was a reach. We will see. Hopefully he turns into Robin Yount or Paul Moliter and makes us all forget that he was a reach. |
| 51. By: slamcactus on 06-13-2011 14:00:52 rjfrik: Triunfel's had a nice revival, for sure. Definitely interesting again, and some sort of prospect, if not necessarily a top one. Not sure I buy him as a major leaguer yet (without more walks, Jose Lopez with a more consistent batting average starts to look like his best case scenario), but you're right, he's worked his way back into the group of solid prospects in the organization. |
| 52. By: slamcactus on 06-13-2011 14:08:29 "it has been documented by Jason through front office people around the league and scouts that Miller would of been available in the third round." You'd have to know the draft boards of all 29 other teams to know this for sure. I'm sure many scouts believed Miller would've been available in rd. 3, but clearly the Ms didn't believe this to be the case and liked him. Like the pick or not, the Ms FO isn't stupid. They had to think there was a substantial risk Miller would be gone. They drafted him because they liked him. I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt until we see him play. |
| 53. By: rjfrik on 06-13-2011 14:13:08 Exactly Slam. The M's rated him high. What I was saying was my reasoning for the distaste of the pick. And then I was saying that I wasn't alone in that thinking. That is all. |
| 54. By: Edman on 06-13-2011 14:22:55 rjfrik, it is not at all documented that Miller WOULD have been available in the third round. It was SPECULATED by the 10+ people he asked if they thought he would be available. Did Jason ask GMs and scouting directors around the league what if they wouldn't have taken Miller in the second round? It's not a knock against what Jason asked, but it is doubtful that most of those he asked were not in a position to make their team's second round pick. I have no problem with Jason's sources, but do not substitute conjecture for fact. It's a collection of thoughts from those who Jason asked, who are highly knowledgable about professional baseball. As you'll see with virtually every team, there are surprises in every round. As someone else stated, Sickels projected Miller to go in the first round compensation round. Baseball America had him as their #66 prospect. So, the conjecture that he'd have been available in round three, is reasonably flawed. It gets down to wheither or not the M's were willing to gamble he'd be there in round 3. Perhaps, they felt there was a better chance that Cron slips? If so, they were right. |
| 55. By: rjfrik on 06-13-2011 15:42:32 Edman, come on dude. No where did I say that this was a universal fact. I said that it was my belief and the belief of others who are scouts and front office executives. And that was documented by Jason when he wrote this statement. "The grade below doesn't reflect Miller's individual abilities, only the selection at No. 62, because there were better talent available and Miller may very well -- some say absolutely -- would have been there in round 3." He has documented those beliefs. I can say that I whole heartedly wish and hope that Miller becomes an amazing talent and that everyone on my side of the coin is proved wrong. But it's as if all the supporters for Miller can't or won't see that other side of the coin and frankly that is ignorant. We see your views: The M's had him rated higer then anyone else. Trust Jack and Mac as they run a better scouting regime then anyone else. Sickels and Baseball America think he's great. I get it. But it's also OK to differ from the opinion of the front office. |
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 |