KG released his Top 50 today in terms of pure talent, with a mock draft coming tomorrow. Here’s where he ranks a bunch of the guys the Phillies have been linked to…
22. Anthony Hewitt, SS, The Salisbury School (CT)
What He Is: On a pure tools level, he’s the best athlete in this year’s draft, maybe the past several years.
What He’s Not: A baseball player.
In A Perfect World He Becomes: An absolute monster.
Backup Plan: You want fries with that? All kidding aside, he’s a bright kid who’ll go to a good school and end up just fine if this whole baseball thing doesn’t work out.
Open Issues: His risk/reward balance is so thrown off that people have a hard time coming up with a good valuation; like many East Coast prep kids, he’s a year older than most high schoolers.25. Zach Collier, OF, Chino Hills HS (CA)
What He Is: A toolsy player who rocketed from decent prospect to surefire first rounder with an outstanding spring.
What He’s Not: Polished or experienced.
In A Perfect World He Becomes: A player with a very good batting average and decent power.
Backup Plan: Fourth outfielder.
Open Issues: Without a ton of power or a ton of speed, is he a tweener?28. David Cooper, 1B, California
What He Is: Yet another bat-only college first baseman, but loaded with everyone’s favorite two p’s, power and plate discipline.
What He’s Not: A guy who will ever be a good defender or win a foot race.
In A Perfect World He Becomes: A middle-of-the-order run producer.
Backup Plan: Something less than that, but he’s pretty much first base and DH only.
Open Issues: He is what he is, as his body doesn’t offer a ton of projection.30. Daniel Schlereth, LHP, Arizona
What He Is: The son of an NFL lineman and a bulky lefty who’s velocity is hard to match among this year’s crop of southpaws.
What He’s Not: Anything more than a reliever.
In A Perfect World He Becomes: Randy Myers?
Backup Plan: More of a set-up type.
Open Issues: He has a long medical record, including a Tommy John surgery; his delivery has a lot of moving parts.38. Brett Devall, LHP, Niceville HS (FL)
What He Is: As advanced as any high school arm in the draft, with outstanding control and a deep arsenal.
What He’s Not: A power arm.
In A Perfect World He Becomes: A fourth starter.
Backup Plan: Some kind of big leaguer.
Open Issues: Can the fringe-average fastball set up the secondary stuff? Does his ceiling justify his price, or is there such a thing as a safe high school arm?
Phuture Phillies 
I have a hunch they wind up with a future 4th OFer in Collier. DeVall doesn’t sound that exciting either-4th starter as a best case?
Please Phillies, stay away from these guys, unless it’s in the Comp/2nd.
(Should add: Cooper sounds promising)
LikeLike
Well DeVall is still a personal favorite, and I think hes being undersold a bit.
I think this just illustrates how weak this draft class is, in terms of impact guys throughout the first round. This is where the teams with the best crosscheckers and scouts will wind up with solid value in the 2nd-5th rounds, and the teams that seem to miss will likely miss again.
LikeLike
This lack of depth is why teams would take a look at a guy like Hewitt late in the 1st, no? High risk, high reward kind of guy. Otherwise, you can find 4th OFs and 5th SPs and middle relievers in the 2nd-10th rounds.
LikeLike
KG and Keith Law echoed my issues with DeVall: lack of upside+ distance from the bigs. Since drafting a high school pitcher is inherently unsafe, I’m not sure there’s a such thing as a “safe high school pitcher”. I wouldn’t mind DeVall at #34, but would prefer someone with more potential at #24.
Barring injury, I tend to think “stuff” offers as much security as “pitchability”. Greg Maddux’s control is far more rare than Zito’s curveball or Zumaya’s fastball. While none of these tools alone guarantee big league success, its probably easier to project stuff than those elusive intangibles. A delivery can be tweaked, but physical attributes cannot be taught. Although the radar gun is probably overused, velocity will never go out of style.
I guess I’m just frustrated with the overall lack of velocity in the Phillies system. How many pitchers in their entire system, ML- low A, can throw mid 90s? How many can in, say the Dodgers system?…I realize hard throwers aren’t necessarily the best fit in CBP, but the Phils can’t ignore the most obvious, objective measure of a young pitching prospect. Although, I guess if they’re serious about Knapp, there aren’t many better power arms in this draft.
…and I guess “barring injury” isn’t fair, when so many supposed “power arms” in the entire Phils system (Myers, Gordon, Drabek, Mathieson) have trouble staying healthy. A big part of DeVall’s appeal is his smooth, ML ready delivery.
How would you rate DeVall alongside these other prep pitchers projected to go in the late 1st-comp round:
Jake Oderizzi
Tim Melville
Robbie Ross
Nick Maronde
Kyle Lobstein
Michael Montgomery
Daniel Webb
I’d prefer Melville and Odorizzi, but they’ll probably be gone. I like Maronde, but he’s supposedly is a tough sign, which drops his value…I see the rest as fairly even with DeVall…maybe I’d put Montgomery a little ahead…
LikeLike
I’d prefer Melville, but hes not likely to be signable at 24, and I think he’s going before that anyway. I like Oderizzi, and I’d take him. I think the rest are about equal to DeVall, but I guess I just prefer DeVall because of the smoothness of his delivery. I’m less worried about him getting hurt, and I’m more optimistic that he can add velocity going forward. I think control and command are the two biggest things that separate guys who can succeed in the low minors and guys who can’t. Its great to be able to throw 95, but if you have a difficult delivery to repeat, command/control will be a lot tougher, and if you dont know where the ball is going, you’re not going to get out advanced hitters.
LikeLike
Mark Prior had a nice smooth delivery too.
LikeLike
Prior had mechanics issues that have been discussed in great detail in various places.
LikeLike
Of these five guys, I wouldn’t be surprised to see the
Phillies pick Cooper. They seem to like these big one-
dimensional first basemen–most of whom have been
losers up to now. (Howard excluded, obviously. I still
have some hope for Durant, however.) But I can’t say
that I’m much impressed with any of these options.
Hewitt wouldn’t suprise me either, for obvious reasons.
LikeLike
I wouldn’t say the Phillies like big, one-dimensional first basemen at all. Other than perhaps Pat Burrell, who was far from one dimensional, they have never drafted one of these guys in the first 3 rounds. Yes they took Howard, Durant, Yarborough, etc. but these were not primo draft picks. The Phillies even passed on Thomas in favor of a nothing highly athletic HS OF. If the Phillies have a weakness over the years, it has been in picking guys who are good athletes, fast runners, good defenders, as position players, whom they hope and pray will learn how to hit. Super athlete, potential 5 tools, projectable body, but not yet a baseball player, defines what the Phillies seek in position players in the first 3 rounds. Burrell and Utley were the exceptions and seeming no-brainers when the top-rated college hitter was there as the Phillies picked.
LikeLike
If the Phillies have a weakness over the years, it has been in picking guys who are good athletes…
Groan. I really hope that someday people will stop repeating these baseless canards, though I doubt it.
Allentown, don’t you think that if the Phillies really had a disproportionate weakness for these kinds of players, then the most quintessential example you could come up with wouldn’t have been from almost twenty years ago? Over the past twenty years, the Phillies have made exactly three first round picks who could even arguably [*-see below] be characterized as tools-based: Jackson, Reggie Taylor, and Greg Golson. Over the same timespan, the Phillies have made zero second round picks who fit that description (unless Jason Cooper from 1999 counts – I’m not too familiar with him). And there aren’t a whole lot of third rounders who fit that description either, even though the third round is probably an appropriate place to be selecting guys like that. And in any event, how much sense does it even make to judge a franchise’s draft picks over a twenty-year period? In 1989, when Jackson was picked, the Phillies had a different GM, a different scouting director, and even a different head of the ownership group. I don’t think Claire Betz is setting draft strategy, so there isn’t really any continuity there, at least not in a practical sense.
I seriously doubt that the Phillies have chosen significantly more tools-oriented players in the last few decades than the average team. Now, this is not to say that their drafts have been particularly good. But they’ve been just as likely to screw up by taking college players with good numbers but low ceilings or injury problems (Chad McConnell, Carlton Loewer, Tyler Green).
Also, about Jeff Jackson – the conventional wisdom that has developed about this guy is almost entirely mythical.
1. The Phillies did not “pass up” Frank Thomas in any real sense. Everyone seems to believe that Thomas was the obvious choice but the Phillies reached to take some raw pet project instead, and then Thomas was scooped up by Chicago with the very next pick. That just isn’t the case. Nobody expected the Phillies to take Thomas that year, and Chicago did not have the next pick. In fact, two other teams (Texas, St. Louis) had selections after the Phillies, and they both passed Thomas up too. And nobody batted an eyelash at the time – it wasn’t until Thomas became a superstar three years later that this mythology was invented.
Now, obviously, in hindsight this was stupid. And if you look at Thomas’ college ball numbers today, it seems like people should have known better. But by and large, they didn’t, and the Phillies were not out on a limb on this one.
2. Jackson was not an unusually tools-oriented. Yes he was seen as a good athlete. But a tools-oriented prospect is not just a good athlete, he’s also a project who has no skills (yet) because he lacks experience or who recently switched from another sport or who just has never produced results on the field commensurate with his ability for whatever reason. Golson arguably fits the last category. Jackson doesn’t fit any of them. He put up tremendous, video-game numbers in high school. Obviously high school stats are unreliable, but there was no reason at the time to believe that Jackson was any rawer than any other high schooler in that draft.
Too many people use the term “tools-oriented” not for its true meaning, but to refer, basically, to any black guy with speed. That has to stop, because it just isn’t correct.
LikeLike
Yikes. Off tags.
LikeLike
Wolever was on the Phillies broadcast again last night harping on how much they focus on “pure athletes” and how they really like a lot of the two sport guys because of their athleticism.
LikeLike
As long as Charlie Manuel stays in the system, I have confidence that our instructional staff can teach raw, toolsy position players how to hit
LikeLike
Wolever was on the Phillies broadcast again last night harping on how much they focus on “pure athletes”
Yes, you said that last time too. My point is that Wolever hasn’t walked the walk. He’s had six drafts and he’s picked Golson. Where are all the others? (Setting aside the fact that Wolever doesn’t have the last word anyway, at least not on high-round picks.)
Drafting a two-sport athlete isn’t necessarily a bad thing unless his primary sport is the other one. Travis Mattair was a two-sport star, but nobody calls him toosly.
LikeLike
Actually, everyone called him toolsy.
LikeLike
Dominic Brown, D’Arby Myers, TJ Warren, Mattair, among others
LikeLike
I see that you, in fact, did call Mattair toolsy. Yet you also supported the pick very strongly, while you’re against toolsiness elsewhere. Where are you drawing the line?
Husker: Brown, Warren, and Myers were picked in the 20th, 8th, and 4th rounds, respectively. Not what I’m talking about. Those of us who dislike tools-oriented dislike them in the high rounds when there are other talented players available who are less risky. In the lower rounds where everyone’s a long shot, it’s perfectly appropriate to draft as many toolsy players as you can get your hands on, as far as I’m concerned.
LikeLike
In any event, the point is that not every good athlete is “toolsy”, not every two-sport athlete is “toolsy”. We should be able to agree on that at the very least.
LikeLike
I liked Mattair in the 2nd round, I wouldn’t have supported taking him at 19 because I thought there were much better players available.
I have no problem taking toolsy risks. Hell, if Hewitt were signable, I’d be 100% behind taking him in the 2nd round, just like I was very much in favor of taking Mattair in the 2nd round last year.
LikeLike
Well I pretty much have the same view on that. I included the second round in my analysis earlier mainly just to be thorough.
LikeLike
Jackson did not have a video-type HS career. He did not even appear in listings of top prospects his junior year in HS. He was the athletic wunderkind in his senior year, coming from nowhere in a short season northern program against iffy competition. He was regarded as toolsy and very raw at the time. Sometimes this works. Rollins was raw and toolsy when drafted. Golson was ‘best athlete’ in his class. The year we took Moss, Bourn, and Moran as our 2, 3, 4 picks (in some order) they were also ‘toolsy’ and rated as the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd fastest college players that year. Taylor also was ‘toolsy’ and raw.
LikeLike
And ‘toolsy’ is not a synonym for black and fast. It conveys guys who really haven’t learned to hit or exercise plate discipline.
LikeLike