Baseball America’s Draft Report Card

Other Stuff

First you should read it here (it is behind the pay wall) http://www.baseballamerica.com/draft/2013-draft-report-card-philadelphia-phillies/.  There is a lot jammed into it making it difficult to paraphrase.

Here is the Quick Take:

The Phillies signed an exciting class of hitters, though Knapp had to have Tommy John surgery this fall, which may slow his progress. Their pitching class offers less upside after Keys and Viza.
Bonus Spending: $5.57 million

 

 

 

Other things of note:

  • Best Hitter – Crawford
  • Best Defender – Crawford
  • Best Athlete – Sandberg
  • They like the two overdraft late round signings of Denton Keys and Tyler Viza
  • They apparently made a serious run at signing Biggio (which might explain some late signings) but did not have the money
  • Dan Child could get to the majors quickly as a reliever
Unknown's avatar

About Matt Winkelman

Matt is originally from Mt. Holly, NJ, but after a 4 year side track to Cleveland for college he now resides in Madison, WI. His work has previously appeared on Phuture Phillies and The Good Phight. You can read his work at Phillies Minor Thoughts

30 thoughts on “Baseball America’s Draft Report Card”

        1. Rich, try being reasonable, MLB allowed a certain amount of money per team without being penalized. Biggio would have cost in the JP Crawford range(over $ 1 million) and the team would have to forfeit a pick this year to sign him.

          Like

  2. Though Sandberg is interesting, I think he has a huge flameout risk. Crawford looked great. Tough for Knapp but hopefully he can be involved with catching strategy while the physical reps will be lacking. The rest of the draftees seem unknown.

    Wow, Biggio would have been a major haul, not sure how they could have got him unless Monda took a nothing bonus with an out clause to allow Phillies use that leftover money for Biggio. I assume there are some rules against that? Agree that does make sense that Keys, Viza, and Biter were late signings.

    Not mentioned but I was disappointed that Martarano ‘deal’ did not go through. $100K for chance at a good high school hitter sounded good.

    Great job on this site with the draft by the way!

    Phillies did exceed tax penalty which I never thought they’d do so I was happy to hear that but missing alternate options on Wetzler and Monda was bad.

    Like

      1. No, they were not. Wetzler/Monda were top 10 (actually top 6) picks whom the Phillies, uniquely in MLB, were unable to sign. When they were not signed, the bonus $ allocated for those picks under the MLB draft budget allocation vanished. While bonus money may be used anywhere in the draft, it is assigned pick by pick for the picks in the first 10 rounds and allocation for each of those picks is lost if that pick does not sign. For rounds 1-3 there is a comp pick in the next draft, but for rounds 4-10 it is a dead loss. Teams are allowed to sign as many $100K bonus guys as they wish after round 10 and those $ do not count against their draft pool. No money saved by not signing Wetzler/Monda went to Keys/Viza/Biter, it simply evaporated.

        Like

        1. I think that’s true from an MLB draft pool perspective, but for the front office, if they had $5.57 million to spend on amateur players *period*, spending the Wetzler/Monda money would have prevented additional signings at the end of the draft.

          Like

  4. Of course Crawford was one of our best first round pick since Hamels. If they do as well or better with our #7 pick in June ’14 (an extra good college pitcher, please), it’ll go a long way toward re-constituting the roster for a new gang of competitiveness.

    Though I didn’t read the detailed article (BA subscription ran out), it’s easy to see that Sandford is the same guy we chose in a toolsy athlete with baseball skills to be developed. Success in that kind of choice has been very limited in the Phils past. Even if he does “develop” it is likely to take 3-4 seasons for those baseball skills to show up, if at all.
    IMO, the Phils have mistakenly been drafting HS prospects when they should have concentrated on the college ranks to find their prospects more than they have. MAYBE HS picks are cheaper when the apparent elites are gone.

    Like

    1. There are very few to no up the middle college prospects. Also most good college hitters are off the board in the first 20 picks.

      HS picks are actually more expensive because you are buying out college

      Like

      1. You’re right, of course. Let’s add a couple more facts:

        (1) The tired argument that the Phillies have had bad luck (or bad drafting) with high school kids, and therefore should switch to college picks, doesn’t even make sense. If you don’t trust them to make good high school picks, why should you expect them to make good college picks?

        (2) Picking in the late first round, you have a choice between high risk/high upside players and safer, lower upside players. There’s no “right answer” to this dilemma, but if you want high upside players at that point you go with the high school kids. (Yes, there are exceptions. But most star level players in the major leagues were either HS picks, players not subject to the draft, or high first round college picks. I’ll do a quick little study on this if I have time.)

        Now, all THAT said, one can IMO fault the team for the TYPES of high risk picks they have made late in the first round. Toolsie picks lacking a hit tool should not be first round picks, even late first round picks. Save them for later. But even late in the first round, there tends to be high upside high school picks who, while risky, aren’t QUITE as risky as the Hewitts of the world. AND one can argue that the team’s drafting philosophy has overly emphasized the high risk players at the expense of lower risk/higher ceiling players. (I tend to disagree with that argument, but reasonable minds can differ.)

        (I wonder also if there may be a player development issue – I wouldn’t have said that a couple of years ago, but the lack of quality major league players produced by the system in recent years is starting to get alarming.)

        Fortunately, picking at 7, whether HS or college, pitcher or hitter (and it IS quite possible that Art is correct in the particular, the best player available may turn out to be a college pitcher, the team will be able to pick a (relatively) low risk prospect.

        Like

        1. But I think everyone should go back and look at the first 10 picks of the draft from, say, 2006-2010. Lots of familiar names there, but also lots of guys you have never heard of, like Timothy Beckham (Tampa Bay’s #1 pick in 2008) or Philippe Aumont (ok, you have heard of him, sadly). All prospects are high risk. It’s great that they’re picking at #7, but that doesn’t mean they’re going to get a “can’t miss” talent, because there is no such thing as a can’t miss talent.

          Like

    2. So, were the people responsible for these lauded selections also the same as the people responsible for the previous 3 drafts? Are they the same responsible for the next draft? One might hope scout’s input might be devalued or emphasized based on the results of past drafts but judging from the locations players come from in these past 4 drafts, is there evidence this happens?

      Like

      1. Look at the Cardinals number one picks over the last decade or so….picks that you would expect to develop into MLB players, and it isn’t earth-shattering.
        2003 — Daric Barton-c….2004 —Christopher R Lambert-p….2005 —Mark A Mccormick-p
        —James T Greene-ss, —Tyler D Herron-p, —Colby R Rasmus-of
        2006—Adam R Ottavino-p….—Christopher R Perez-p
        2007 —Peter M Kozma-ss, —Clayton G Mortensen-p
        2008 —Brett A Wallace-3B, —Michael L Lynn-p
        2009 —Shelby Miller -p..2010 —Zach Cox-3B, —Seth Blair-p,—Tyrell Jenkins-p
        2011 —Kolten Wong-2B…2012 —Michael Wacha-p
        Apparently the key to success is the later rounds and international signings.

        Like

        1. Not sure that’s the right conclusion. The early round picks have been hugely responsible for the Cardinals success. Two of the three home-grown starters they’ve used in the playoffs this year are former first-round picks (Wacha and Lynn) and the third (Kelly) was a third-round pick. The other starter, Wainwright, was a first-round pick of the Braves who the Cardinals acquired by trading one of their own first rounders (JD Drew). Shelby Miller, who would presumably be the next man standing if they needed another starter this year, was also a first round pick.

          Of the starting eight … Holliday was acquired by trading two first-round picks (Wallace and Moretensen) and Kozma was himself a first round pick. Jay was a second rounder. Molina was a fourth rounder. Beltran was a free agent and Freese was acquired in a trade for Jim Edmonds. The only late rounders to play key roles this year have been Allen Craig (8th), Matt Carpenter (13th) and Trevor Rosenthal (21st).

          There haven’t been any significant contributions from international signings.

          Two of the key contributors on their 2011 championship team were first round picks of other teams signed by the Cards as free agents (Chris Carpenter and Lance Berkman). Other key contributors on that team (Marc Rzepczynski, Edwin Jackson and Octavio Dotel) were acquired in a trade that included first rounder Colby Rasmus. There was a late-round selection by the name of Pujols who appears to have contributed to their success that year.

          Like

          1. Concentrated only on first rounders.
            These are the picks that have the highest expectations.
            It has been mentioned here that a true barometer of a good draft produces 2 or 3 players.
            IMO, the first pick should be at least one of those players.
            Everyone knows, all clubs have struckout on that pick at some point in the past.
            And in this case of their 18, I would say that 40% didn’t come up to their expected outcomes.

            Like

    1. It fell through, the article at the time seemed to indicate it was less about money and more about when he would play baseball (it looked like the earliest he wanted to show up was late Spring Training 2014) and the Phillies wanted him there more.

      Like

  6. What startles, baffles, and throws me into acute despondency is that so many seemingly rational and sensible baseball fans would give such credulous attention to the views expressed by BBA’s wannabe “experts” (of at least “autorities”…or, for that matter, competent either as journalists or as knowledgeable, experienced coaches or players).

    Any scrutiny of past BBA evaluations of youngsters, or their ratings/rankings of HS players, and particularly taking into account BBA’s comparative jjudgments about recruiting classes since the first draft speculations in 1965, should have you raising the red caution flags hastily.

    To put it perspective, BBA proclaimed the “best recruiting class of all time” to be that of the Los Angeles Dodgers in 1989. That group had TWO of about 60 draft picks eventually play in the majors–their first pick high in Round 1–one of the two players who were twice a #1 selecltion–eventually made the majors at age 27, after five years of struggle in the minors, had a modest career in the Bigs for a few years….with the KC Royals, not in LA. A better pick, and a longer, more productive MLB career, was by the 70th pick.

    BBA described the Cleveland Indian draft of the same year as poor, worst in the majors, hinted that it was because of front office incompetence & chaos. That Indian draft class had seven selections go on to solid major league careers, led by Jim Thome.

    When are fans going to understand that BBA is like astrology or Nostradamus–fun to read, but too silly and speculative to take at all seriously. And provided by folk who found it easier to take up scams than to get real expertise by training & experience.

    Like

Comments are closed.