| By Jason A. Churchill |  | By 03-13-2009 |
The latest Premium Notebook has been published and is available to premium subscribers.In this edition, a scout talks about Phillippe Aumont, an opposing pitcher shares his mini scouring report on Greg Halman, I share some random quotes and my new top 10 for the Draft.
If you are not a subscriber, Click here to sign up for just $2.00 per month.
Next week I'll have an abbreviated premium notebook to include my own scouting report on Dustin Ackley, with the assistance of a former M's scout now getting his paychecks from an NL Central club.
premium-notebook
Comments
The following 14 comment(s) for this article are shown below:
| 1. By: Gustafson on 03-13-2009 14:05:47 Looking forward to your reports on Dustin Ackley. Good to see he is beginning to hit for some more power. He hit three homers over a two game period earlier this week... After going homerless for about ten games to start the year. |
| 2. By: bilbo on 03-13-2009 14:22:59 Great notes Jason. Do you really think the Ms would take a HS kid @ #2 if he is going to need 3-4 years dev time? It is very early but at this point, I believe they will end up choosing between Ackley and Crow (assuming Stras goes #1) because they are both decent-high upside, high polish players who can contribute soon to the big club. After that, I could see HS guys with the next picks (or best player available, obviously). |
| 3. By: Jason A. Churchill on 03-13-2009 19:48:26 Based on what, bilbo? You believe they will choose between Ackley and Crow because... why? Because they could help SOONER? I can guarantee you that if the BETTER talent in the M's eyes is a high school player, that's who they take. The Most Valuable Talent available could very well be a prep player. The M's aren't going to become contenders in the next year or two with the No. 2 pick no matter who they take. You can't settle for a No. 2-3 starter just because he helps quicker. That doesn't balance out the potential difference in pure talent and value of the players themselves. |
| 4. By: bilbo on 03-13-2009 20:10:01 Let me ask my question this way: Do you think that the extra time it takes a HS player to develop would make the college guys more valuable and the Ms more likely to take a college guy? I don't think the difference is enough to overcome a huge talent difference but I don't see that difference this year at this time. By your own accounts, the draft is 1, 2-20, 21-60 or some such. Because of the time of the ROI I expect that this is the case and as a result I have the board currently as Stras ... ... ... Ackley Crow (he has to pitch well in indy ball) ... Tate Matzek,etc If Tate or Matzek or another HS guy is truly an elite talent that is a much better prospect than Ackley then taking him makes sense. But if the difference is minimal I can see taking the college guy. |
| 5. By: Jason A. Churchill on 03-13-2009 20:36:11 Ackley has to be a center fielder or he's not even a top 10 guy. The time isn't the problem wit prep kids, it's the risk, though it's not a risk full of not developing... it's about injury. College arms are a safer bet to be either past that, or will contribute in the big leagues before an injury occurs. But the payoff isn't typcially there. The ceiling for Matzek-Miller-Purke-Skaggs is higher than that of White-Gibson-Crow, although I have a feeling Crow could prove better, but he's lost developmental time now, and a lot of it. |
| 6. By: Slurve on 03-13-2009 20:55:19 Also with HS you come with the worry they don't pan out as planned and you still get an impact player but the reward wasn't the same. |
| 7. By: Jason A. Churchill on 03-13-2009 21:02:28 That risk is still there with college players, too. Hitters don't make the transition to the wood bat, or they turn out to be Alex Gordon. Valuable players but not stars. Players change more between 17-20 than they do between 21-24; the upside is in the prep player. |
| 8. By: bilbo on 03-13-2009 21:21:06 with the HS guys it is all about upside and projection and it takes time for them to reach or not reach their potential. So in addition to injury there is a bigger question of reaching potential. With the college kids, they are closer to what they are going to be so there is much less risk...and potentially less upside. Bottom line is it is about teams risk tolerance. re Crow, I have heard you say a few times that he has lost a lot of development time - can you elaborate? I mean, he pitched until June and is starting up again next month and could report very quickly so is he really losing so much time that it makes that much of a difference wrt the pitcher he can be? |
| 9. By: Jason A. Churchill on 03-13-2009 21:57:30 But the reward is HIGHER, bilbo, which is why you see top picks coming out of HS as much as college players. Crow has not pitched since June, and won't pitch until at least May 14. He'll have gone 11 months without throwing a competitive pitch and is essentially a college pitcher that misses all but a few weeks of his senior year. That's valuable time lost. |
| 10. By: bodhizefa on 03-13-2009 23:25:13 Jason, can we applicably label Alex Gordon a non-star just yet? I don't mean to go off track from the M's for too long, but is there some sort of projective scouting report you have on Gordon that states he's very unlikely to get much better? Admittedly, when it comes to hitters, I know very little in terms of scouting, so I'll certainly cede to your knowledge on this without any real argument in that area. And now, to put this back into Mariners perspective, here's an interesting question for you. Do you think Greg Halman will ever be as good as Mike Cameron, or is that his most likely upside at this point? Sure, there's a very slim chance he turns into a legitimate perennial All-Star, but let's talk more realistic percentages. Lastly, has the club seen something in Reegie Corona that we haven't discussed yet? Do they think they've found some sort of defensive guru that we haven't been privy to as of yet? |
| 11. By: bilbo on 03-13-2009 23:58:34 The reward COULD BE higher if they don't get hurt AND they reach their potential. It really is about risk tolerance as you and some of your scout friends mentioned in a few of the ESPN articles (which are great btw). Between Ackley and Tate, how much higher is Tate's ceiling and does it warrant the extra risk? How is Ackley's D supposed to rate in CF and if he can't stick due to his arm is there any truth that he may be a fit at 2b? I guess what I like about Ackley is his bat should play anwhere even if the power doesn't fully develop and he is a LH bat, which plays well in Safeco. |
| 12. By: Lonnie on 03-14-2009 01:47:30 It would seem to me that any MLB team should have some sort of metric(s) that they employ when determing ROI betweem a college player versus a prep. Just looking at pitchers: You would think that everyone has compiled the numbers and have come up with a percentage figure of the chance of a prep pitcher successfully moving through a system and reaching the major leagues. Also, a good look at mechanics is probabaly employed to determine the level of work needed to get a prep pitcher to pitch at a major league level. No doubt maturity also comes into play. Physical build and similarity to existing drafted pitchers. There are no doubt more that I haven't thought of, but it just makes sense to me that some sort of weighting system must be inplace for a club to use as a part of their decision making process when you have two vastly different pools to choose from (college vs prep). Also, although this will chap the hides of people like Jason (sorry), I am equally sure that team needs play a part in making the selection. Lonnie |
| 13. By: Jason A. Churchill on 03-14-2009 11:58:46 bodhizefa, Well, is Gordon a star? No, he's not. It certainly doesn't appear he's going to be. He will probably get better, still, but he's not a 20-year-old - he's actually 25 - and is quickly running out of time to show star potential. I have not talked to many scouts that still think Gordon is going to become a star of any kid. Bilbo, You're missing the point... the point is, college players have the same amount of risk. Do the math, the research has been done. High School players and college players that are drafted generally have the same chance to get to the big leagues. The differences lie in prep arms - being more risky, yet with more reward than college arms - and the prep player generally becomes a star more often. 13 of the last 25 No. 1 picks have been prep players, and that's NOT because big-league clubs are stupid. Re: Ackley, If he can't play center, left is the next best spot for him. And we know here in Seattle that a good left fielder is more important than it is in most other parks. Plus, Ackley will hit. |
| 14. By: Jason A. Churchill on 03-14-2009 12:06:57 Lonnie, You're actually wrong. Team needs only become part of the decision when the talents being considered at a certain spot are equally - or very, very closely graded by the organization. No team that I am aware of goes into the draft and drafts positions they NEED. The Mariners don't NEED starting pitching, per se, not more than shortstop and corner bats... but they wouldn't draft Grant Green or Ryan Wheeler over Stephen Strasburg. Why? Because Stras is the better talent, he's more valuable to them, even though they don't have a pressing need for his position, than anyone else. If a closer is the best player/value available at 27 or 33, that's who they are going to take, even though they have Fields. In 2005, the M's had Clement, Maybin and Tulowitzki graded within "inches of each other,' according to Bob Fontaine's assistant VP at the time. They took Clement because - at the time at least - they did not have a franchise catcher, and believed in Betancourt. If Tulo or Maybin were graded a clear notch above, they would have passed on Clement, regardless. They went into draft day trying to find a way for their scouts to separate the two from Clement, but it didn't happen and the rest is history. Late in the draft, the philosophy does change - you will see teams drafting players to fill spots. The same assistant VP told me two years ago, and I'll paraphrase, that "we'll look to make sure we have the holes filled. We don't want to be in a position where we have to rush a player because we don't have a more comfortable option at a certain position. We'll draft a college infielder to avoid rushing a younger infielder who has a chance to be am everyday player." But he did say, and I quote directly, "I've never been involved with an organization that drafts pure need over value. That just doesn't happen, not early in the draft, probably not ever. And I've been around 21 years." |
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 |