You *must* compare the percentage of such players against at least a standard of what percentage of draft picks come from where. At the very least. As a poor-ish first order approximation, this would at least make the results meaningful.

As an obvious example, if 80% of star players come out of college, but 95% of draft picks are college players, high schoolers are actually much better draft picks, they'd be becoming stars at almost 4 time the raet of collegers even though they only made up a fifth of stars in such a scenario.

Interesting Marc.

Do you have the breakdown of pitchers versus hitters?

My belief is that you're better off drafting college pitchers, but it really doesn't matter whether you draft high school or college hitters. I'm wondering if your research helps my random theory or hurts it.

Andrew: Baseball America did such a study awhile ago. Check it out here. There's sample size issues here galore, but the one thing you can take out of it is you're a lot more likely to draft a guy who never makes the show if you take a highschooler.

Paul: I do have pitcher/batter splits but not with me at work...

Andrew: Some of these players were probably drafted about 20 years ago so it would be hard for me to be able to come up with a definitive base for comparison, however, based on this year's draft of 1,487 players 47 per cent were college players, 33 per cent were high school and 20 were junior college.

This is by no means meant to be a study that finds out once and for all which is better. I'm just hoping to shed a little light, or at the very least, entertain some people and get them talking.

I'd like the study to include the point of 'Andrew S'. As well, I think we all know college players are more likely to get to the bigs than highschool players. I'd like to see a category split. Say: 'star player' and 'sure-fire future hall of famer'.

It's the risk vs. reward curve. Drafting highschool players is high risk, high reward.

In the end it comes down to sample size that hurt these studies. Even using the major league pool of 700 some odd players is still too small.

Sigh: we'll just have to debate this one the old-fashion way and in the end go on intuition.

If I were drafting I'd like adequate information on both highschoolers and college players. I'd would favour college picks, but if it's the third round and there's a dreamboat highschool player still out there, and a run-of-the-mill college player to choose from, I might take a chance on the high schooler: it might be Doc Gooden or Daryl Strawberry.

But, I understand the Jays budget is so tight that they don't have the cash to invest on this scouting information. Another advantage to college picks, the information is cheap because someone has already compiled the stats for you. You can trust the stats more than some old Dick Williams-type scout 'feel' for a guy.

It's a fascinating issue.

But what baseball really should be doing is encouraging baseball highschool stars to go to college. There should be more scholarships for diamond heroes, but that's another matter. Perhaps in revenue sharing all 30 MLB teams could pool in a tuition fund for players: Now that's giving back to the community (and making your scouting work a lot easier). Imagine the great PR when some poor black or latino kid from the Bronx gets a scholarship from MLB to go to a State University or something. I must be dreaming though... In a perfect world...

if it's the third round and there's a dreamboat highschool player still out there, and a run-of-the-mill college player to choose from

I agree with you completely, but what are the odds of that happening?

But, I understand the Jays budget is so tight that they don't have the cash to invest on this scouting information.

I don't think that's true at all. They do scout highschoolers, plyus there's all the scouting info they get from MLB central scouting.

As has been stated before, HS hitters take much longer to develop, which is why Josh Phelps spent six years in the minors, and Russ Adams and Aaron Hill will spend about half of that. Also, Phelps apepars to having problems adjusting to the majors, which I would say on general happens to more high school hitters than colege, although I have no direct evidence of such.

This faster development is a big advantage to small-budget teams like the A's and Jays who need their players to be productive in their first six years here, before they become free agents and demand raises which the team may not be able to afford. Also, with a relatively thin system, JP wanted to stock the system with college picks who will becoming the bigs quickly, and then once you have a relatively steady stream of college players coming up, one is better prepared to be able to take some high-round risks on high school players.

With the thin system, drafting college players was definitely the right choice. If you system is doing well, gamble a bit more.

It took Rios five years to get to the majors. It will probably take Adams two. Which one would you rather have?

It's all about risk vs. certainty, and rush vs. patience. Everyone knew Adams would be ready relatively quickly. Everyone also knew, or should know, that we're more than likely going to see a .280/.350/.360 type hitter if he pans out. That's a .700 OPS first round pick, with questionable D at short. I don't see why Ricciardi should get praised for this. If he takes Kazmir instead, we're much, MUCH better off (though I'm sure that was financial/agent related, hopefully not high school related).

I just don't see what positives we gain by completely dismissing high school players in the early rounds. That's like going on a dating type show where you can select one of 25 women to date, but completely rule out brunettes and red heads before the show even begins. You're limiting your options, and you may end up with an inferior selection as a result.

The thing with the draft is, everything is uncertain. Every team is dealing with the unknown. Just because someone is a logical first round college pick, it doesn't mean he ends up becoming a good MLB player. And just because a high school player make take a few years to make noise, doesn't mean it's not worth the risk. Selecting a college pitchers doesn't rule out TJS or any arm problems either. You're dealing with the unknown either way. Luck plays a huge factor.

It would be nice if Ricciardi expanded his mind a bit, and went with BPA (best player available) instead of focusing strictly on college. I can understand with Toronto's weak system in '02, that he wanted to fill it up quickly. But now that there seems to be a logjam of college arms, and the need for high upside position players has risen, it's time to change his focus a bit.

I fear we might be seeing a cesspool of Jason Arnold's and Russ Adams' over the next few years without ever seeing a glimpse of another Rios or Wells for a long time.

It would be nice if Ricciardi expanded his mind a bit, and went with BPA (best player available)

The Blue Jays obviously feel that the best player available is the advanced college player, not the raw high school player. I'm not really sure how any of us here knows enough to question that strategy. This isn't the same as wondering about how Tosca uses his relievers.

It would be nice if Ricciardi expanded his mind a bit, and went with BPA (best player available) instead of focusing strictly on college.

Who says these are at all mutually exclusive?

And what does Jason Arnold have to do with the Jays drafting strategy?

I'm sure the Jays prior to JP used the best player available philosophy, yet the system was weak. tIn any case, the Jays have not completely ignored HS age players. They continue to sign them out of the Dominican and Venezuela and where opportunities and financial sense arise they will sign a Cheng type player.

If David Eckstein II is the most advanced college player available, it's justified to select him?

BPA is subjective. It varies through different scouts, GM's, etc. Maybe I should have been a little clearer with that. The point is, it's extremely short-sighted to select a low upside college player just because of ETA when there is a higher upside player, who may take longer to pan out, that is available. I'm not suggesting favoring one over the other (college or high school), just opening your mind and realizing that both of those selections have risks and rewards, and dismissing one altogether is shortening your options of getting the best player you can.

Hypothetical: If Zack Greinke was still on board in the 2002 draft, do we take him or Russ Adams? If you can say Greinke with a straight face, I'll be very surprised.

"And what does Jason Arnold have to do with the Jays drafting strategy?"

Jason Arnold is a comparable pitcher to any one of the college pitchers we've selected in the draft recently. It's like a robot factory. We are producing the same type of pitcher every year.

The point is, it's extremely short-sighted to select a low upside college player just because of ETA when there is a higher upside player, who may take longer to pan out, that is available.

Can you point to a situation under JP's situation where he did so?

The Jays not taking Greinke had nothing to do with him being a highschooler, and you've indicated that you know that, so I don't know why you keep bringing him up.

I meant under J.P.'s tenure as GM.

Time to get more coffee. :)

Marc, thank you for your contribution. Given the disparity in star power between the best teams and worst teams, though, might you be able to rework your study to include the 180 best players overall? That would still be subjective, but maybe a tad less arbitrary than the "three and three" methodology.

Can you point to a situation

Sure, Moffatt. Russ Adams.

There's simply no denying SK's fundamental point, which is that J.P. trades off upside for (a) the greater certainty that the player will at least be serviceable at the big-league level, given the greater availability of meaningful statistics and years of scouting; and (b) a faster track to the majors.

I also think his prescription going forward isn't crazy -- namely, that the Jays are becoming well-stocked with ETA 2006 players, so why not take a chance on a truly special talent (if you have confidence in your scouting) with an ETA 2009 next year?

I don't mean to characterize the "upside tradeoff" point pejoratively. I'm sure the front office would cheerfully admit to it. High school players are very risky.

So who should have the Jays taken at 14 instead of Adams?

"Can you point to a situation under JP's situation where he did so?"

14. Adams
15. KAZMIR
16. SWISHER
17. HAMELS
-
19. LONEY
-
21. BROWNLIE (saw him pitch at Rutgers twice, very good arm)
-
24. BLANTON

You're telling me none of these players have higher upside than "advanced" Russ Adams? Whether Adams was a cost effective pick as well is a different story, I don't know the specifics there, but from an upside and talent standpoint, Ricciardi easily passed on a handful of better players in the first round alone. I don't see how that can be debated, at least not effectively.

"The Jays not taking Greinke had nothing to do with him being a highschooler, and you've indicated that you know that, so I don't know why you keep bringing him up."

Keep bringing up Greinke? I mentioned his name once in a hypothetical question, I don't see how that equates to me "keep bringing him up". Greinke ended up reaching the big leagues (out of high school) quicker than Adams did. If both were available at 14 in 2002, which one does JP pick? Again, if you can say Greinke with a straight face, I have some Enron stock for you to buy. Limit your options, get burned in the process. That's my point.

Every draft has talented players going after a certain team picks. It's natural. My point in relation to Adams is, it should have been obvious that was the case with the 14th pick. No power, average D short-stops who have career paths similar to David Eckstein are not first round picks.

How about Scott Kazmir, Cole Hamels, Joe Blanton, or Nick Swisher?

If both were available at 14 in 2002, which one does JP pick? Again, if you can say Greinke with a straight face

Greinke isn't available at 14. If I'm picking at #6, I take Jeff Francis.

I fear we might be seeing a cesspool of Jason Arnold's and Russ Adams' over the next few years without ever seeing a glimpse of another Rios or Wells for a long time.

Unless I'm missing something the conclusion that a HS player has a higher ceiling than a college player is a myth.

Looking at the BA study that Mike linked to the odds of a player being a 'star' from HS or college is essentially the same.

Jim Callis at BA looked at right handed pitchers in a July 13 article. I think it is for subscribers. He argued that there was not really any difference between highschoolers and college right handers. He said in part:If a club decided to take a college righty in the first round every year, it would come up with an additional blue-chip pitcher once every 25 years than if it went with a prep righthander each time.

If he is right, then the college player is the better choice (for the Jays) because:

1. Why wait 5 years instead of 2 or 3?
2. College players are more projectable I would think both in terms of physical and mental development
3. They are less likely to hold a gun to your head when signing (highschoolers have to significant leaverage of threatening to go to college)

I would guess that if someone could study "bang for the buck", college players would turn out to be an even more sensible choice

How about Scott Kazmir, Cole Hamels, Joe Blanton, or Nick Swisher?

I thought the point was that J.P. was unnecessarily avoiding highschoolers with "upside". If so, Blanton and Swisher are rather irrelevant to the argument.

Kazmir only fell to 15 because of signability concerns. Half of the posters here were whining because it took the Jays a few extra weeks to sign Purcey and Jackson. Those posters would have been calling for J.P.'s head on a pike if he drafted someone who would be a tough sign like Kazmir.

Cole Hamels looks like a highschool pick that will pan out well.

OK lets play that game. Why were Blanton and Swisher taken ahead of David Bush? I don't think they're better prospects. Kazmir and Hamels? Let's see if they reach the majors first (see McGowan, Dustin; Rosario, Francisco). It's so simple to sit back in hindsight and say "oh, you should have picked this guy" he has higher upside. The fact is if Bush stays healthy he'll have a better career than most of the first and second round picks. Were those teams picking high upside guys? I don't even know what that means.

"The fact is if Bush stays healthy he'll have a better career than most of the first and second round picks. Were those teams picking high upside guys? I don't even know what that means."

The fact mato? Please post us links to these so called facts? How do you know after 3 starts, that he will have this great carrer, there is still 19 and 20 years olds from that draft, who could still blossom. Blanton is still a very good prospect.

"OK lets play that game. Why were Blanton and Swisher taken ahead of David Bush? "

hmm..because they had higher upside and great carreers at their respective Colleges? College Closers taken in the first round was uncommon until only recently.

"If so, Blanton and Swisher are rather irrelevant to the argument."

The arguement or question by Mato was "So who should have the Jays taken at 14 instead of Adams?" Those are names of very good prospects who could pan out. If either of those two guys were avaiable in round 2 , there is a good possiblity, David Bush would not be a blue Jay.

Actually, Purcey and Lind from this year's draft were both what I would characterize as "medium risk, high reward" picks. You don't have to pick a high-schooler to take a risk.

My own biases:
1. don't take a high school pitcher unless you're absolutely, absolutely certain they'll be great, and
2. high school position players can be reasonable risks.

There is a caveat to my first principle. If one seriously worked on the biomechanical end of pitching such that one had confidence that one could do a better job of managing workload/mechanics/development issues than the colleges, one might re-think one's position. The only team that's really doing this now to my knowledge is the Mets, with Peterson. In the past draft, they drafted 2 high school pitchers and 5 college pitchers in the first 20 rounds.

You're telling me none of these players have higher upside than "advanced" Russ Adams?

Wow, you have really "advanced" powers of hindsight.

Anyway, I think the general point is well taken. J.P. has traded off upside (not expected upside, but "high side" upside) for certainty, and also attempted to fill an organizational weakness, since his predecessor didn't care if his middle infielders hit .180 (which, of course, they did). Adams was a prolific hitter and top defender at a top college, he was clearly more of a "known quantity". (Which doesn't mean in itself that he had less upside - it means you have better information on him).

By the way, Swisher clearly didn't have better upside than Adams. Adams was a far better hitter than Swisher in college - and Adams was a shortstop and Swisher an outfielder.

If you buy a Super 7 ticket, and I put my $2 in my savings account, you have much higher upside, as you may net $10, $100,000, or even $10,000,000 out of it. I will earn 3% on it for the next 50 years. You haven't done better than I (you are more likely to wind up with Cole Hamels, but you're also more likely to wind up with Cole Hamels) you just got more upside potential and more downside potential.

Incidentally, in taking Purcey with their top pick this year, the Jays went for the upside potential... the really big lefty with the really heavy fastball with the really big control concerns. That's no safety first pick.

There is *far* too little discussion among fans about the downside potential of top draftees, even though it's a signiicant part of the necessary evaluation. We all like to daydream, I guess, whether it's about becoming an instant millionaire or drafting the next Albert Pujols.

Swisher may not have a higher upsideThen Adams, but he seems to be very good money ball player, who this organization would love to thave.

...and Adams isn't a good "moneyball player" who this organization would love to have?

Brownlie was hurt at the time of that draft, some shoulder thing.

Hamels had a broken pitching arm in high school.

And Loney, for all that delicious upside, is hitting .252 without power in AA.

I have no doubt in my mind that Bush is a major league pitcher. There's nothing he has done in pro ball which would indicate otherwise. Or do minor league stats mean nothing? I never said that Blanton was not a good prospect. I think Bush has pulled ahead of him especially this year. When I say that he'll be better than most first and second rounders I'm talking with respect to history. Go back to the prior drafts. Most second rounders never make it. Half of first rounder don't have much of a career if they make it to the majors at all.

PS I did not ask who they should have taken instead of Adams, I believe that was Moffat.

In any case, hindsight is useful only in the overall effect that the drafts bring. The cumulative effect if you will. Focussing on one player is a waste of time. You can play that game round by round. It's too early to tell how this philosophy is working. Only two drafts have had enough playing time to evaluate anything. I think we need a few more years before we can draw any conclusions.

One thing we can all agree on is this:



That's a really freaky looking cat thing.

and Adams isn't a good "moneyball player" who this organization would love to have?

No, who said that, Swisher though, seems to be a good pick as well.

Well you suggested that JP should have drafted Swisher instead of Adams. If he's not higher upside and he's not a better match to JP's philosophy, just why was he clearly such a better pick at the time?

Arguing who JP liked more out of Bush, Adams, Blanton and Swisher is irrelevant to the actual topic of college vs. high school picks. Bush may only have 3 starts but he's already accomplished more than most 2nd round high pitchers ever will.

There's a lot I want to respond to, so I'll just group everything into one LONG post.

To clarify on upside, it's the high end of a player's ability, or ceiling (most of you know that I'm sure). Saying Kazmir and Hamels have more upside than Adams now is not hindsight, it's common sense. If Kazmir pans out, he's a #1-2 starter. If Adams pans out, he's a slightly better version of David Eckstein.

It's the difference between projectablility and high end upside. Ricciardi focuses primarily on the former, which is a recipe of missing out on better players in favor of those you "know" will be average major leaguers.

Ricciardi has done this before with the big club. Ironically, it involved the short-stop situation.

The Jays had two legit, young, high upside short-stops when Ricciardi took over, Felipe Lopez and Cesar Izturis (not really high upside, but defensive value + potential empty .300 hitter gave him a Vizquel type upside). In 2002, Izturis was dealt for Luke Prokopec. Presumably, Lopez was the SS of the future. Unfortunately, Lopez struggled out of the gate (at age 22 mind you), and was benched in favor of an overachieving Chris Woodward. A few months later, Lopez was dealt for Jason Arnold. Woodward came back to earth and has since been an average or slightly below average offensive player, like expected.

That clearly, to me at least, shows a complete lack of patience, and a stronger desire to have "established" mediocrity over potential high reward (Werth vs. Johnson can be used for this too, even though I liked the trade). Not surprising that the same philosophy seems to have carried over to his draft selections. This is nothing new. If anything, this will be the norm. Are you happy with average or willing to take some potential growing pains and get well above average? Yes, I understand Lopez hasn't panned out yet (he's still young) but the comparison is justifiable.

In the 2002 draft, it's quite obvious Ricciardi went for the more projectable player. The problem was, that player projected to be not as valuable a MLB player as a handful of the guys picked after him. I really can't see how that can be praised as some sort of genius by Ricciardi, like many people would like to believe. Less risk, less reward. Even if Hamels and Kazmir don't pan out, it was the difference between a young potential strike out lefty with a 95 mph arm compared to a walk dependent, no power SS. The choice is quite obvious, IMO. It's not like Adams is a a projected Nomar or anything.

Someone mentioned that the old regime went with "best player" approach, and the farm system wasn't as good as it is now. That may be so, depending on your perception of "good". I'd rather have 2-3 "star" quality prospects than 6-7 "average/good prospects". In most cases, it's a lot easier to find the latter than the former.

Everyone projects their picks to the highest ceiling. It wouldn't have been a stretch to have Adams projected to hit .300+ with great plate discipline and be in the majors within a couple of years. Everyone in the first round is projected that way. Most picks never reach their projection. Welcome to the draft.

I should point out that Craig and Mike Green are surely right when they describe Purcey as an "upside" pick. Craig's also right about downside risks.

I also think that now, as the Purcey pick demonstrated, is the appropriate time to start making "upside" picks, because we have a lot of "low-downside" depth in the middle minors. I think a high school phenom -- if he's legitimately a phenom -- makes sense for Round 1 2005...a lot more sense than it would have in Round 1 2002.

SK: I recall at the time that there was talk of F. Lopez being a bit of a headache in terms of his attitude. This was said to be a factor in the decision to trade him, IIRC.

Does the fact that the Jays apparently had their hearts set on Khalil Greene, who the Pads took with the previous pick, have any bearing on their decision to take Adams?

It's simply too early to criticize or congratulate JP for his drafts. I don't remember any Jays fans complaining when they took Wells 5th overall instead of Darnell McDonald, who was purported to have significantly more upside but was also thought to be a tough sign. Was anyone pleased with the drafting of Rios?

If Adams turns out to be David Eckstein II and Kazmir becomes a 200-inning throwing Billy Wagner, then by all means pull out your arrows. Until then let's not rush to judgement.

If Adams pans out, he's a slightly better version of David Eckstein.

This just shows that you have an extremely short memory, or you don't have the first clue what you're talking about. When Adams was drafted, his upside was about what Rickie Weeks's is, maybe a hair less.

His upside (his *reasonable* upside... there is always the chance someone will do an Ian Kinsler) was somewhere on the spectrum between Toby Harrah and Edgar Renteria, I'd say. It remains there... not quite Barry Larkin, but not David Eckstein. (Adams is a pretty big shortstop, incidentally, for those who have not seen him).

Adams seems to have had his work ethic questioned recently. His ability to be a productive major league starter is going to depend on his ability to continue to work at his defense, and to continue to control the strike zone against better players. Also, like many young up-the-middle players, his ability to preserve his good speed as he adds weight and muscle can't be overlooked.

I don't have very much hope of Adams reaching his upside. But then, that's better than Felipe Lopez, who I think has literally zero chance of reaching his much-talked about "upside".

In the case of Adams, he wasn't expected to be a great player no. He was expected to reach the majors within three years and not be overmatched. And from there he was expected to develop more power (which he has, 30 doubles already this year) while providing solid defence at a position of need covering one of the middle infield spots.

Would I have picked him over prep picks like Scott Kazmir or Cole Hamels or James Loney? Or other college picks like Swisher, Jackson, Reed, Anderson, or Blanton? Maybe not.

But then JP already had a Rios, Quiroz, McGowan, League, Perkins, and others in the system who had a lot of talent but had not yet taken a big step forward. The system had a lot of potential but there was a lack of actual production, especially at the higher levels. Vernon Wells was only just taking a regular big league job. He had to trade for a thirdbaseman which didn't exist. The system needed depth and people that could get to AA, AAA, and the majors and it needed it fast. NOBODY knew at that point how much longer Rios, Quiroz, McGowan, and others would take to develop if they ever did.

Even Tim Wilken went the college route to make the system more productive the previous year in selecting Gross who would probably be in the bigs if not for injury problems this year. Brandon League was their second round pick that year and had as much upside as anyone with his high-90s fastball as an 18 year old. As of now he's in his third or fourth season and hasn't turned into a strikeout machine and his ceiling has been reduced to very good setup man or closer. Possibly dominant if he sharpens his control and secondary pitches.

I do agree now though that the system is at a point where at least on the hitting side and perhaps on the pitching side for very polished young pitchers like Grienke or Billingsley, they have to start plugging in some higher ceiling guys if only to make some valuable trading chips. With all due respect to Russ, he's not worth anywhere near in trade what higher ceiling guys like Hamel, Kazmir, and Miller are worth.

If there is essentially very little difference in terms of long term risk in picking between high school and college then given a balanced system you have to choose the best player. And by best player I don't mean best risk or best bang for the buck. I mean the most long term talent that you can sign within your means. For all of the good players the Jays have drafted the past three years, there isn't really one that they could dangle for trade and have people bashing down their doors. Maybe Bush and Banks (if he didn't stumble in AA at first).

But compare that to LA's drafting the past three years and they have tremendously desirable ASSETS. Note I did not say good major league players because they aren't yet. But as ASSETS if they decided to trade them they could get a lot. This is because Logan White decided there is a line at which the certainty of the remaining college players does not surpass the superior talent of a high school player still on the board. That threshold should always be kept in mind, particularly now that the Jays are running out of places to stuff their volumes of college arms they've drafted.

Perception of value is as important as value itself when drafting. For instance, in the Alomar draft I felt like Jermaine Dye was due to have a turnaround year based on his past performance and strong showing in the spring. I could have taken him higher and still gotten the good results he's getting now. But I didn't take him higher because his perceived value was so low and I picked players who may not be better but had a higher perceived value before him. And I was willing to wait until around the 7th round or so because even if I missed out on him there were still players of similar talent floating around. Note that this doesn't necessarily supply you with a better farm system, but it sure makes your farm system look better than it might be. We don't know the actual value of LA's farm system right now but boy does it look good.

I am not sure I understand the arguments comparing Adams with Kazmir. It doesn't do anything to answer the question posed: Highschool vs. College. If Adams had 25 homers right now, would that mean College players are a better bet?

Adams signed for $1.785 million. Kazmir signed for $2.15 million. He was acknowledge to have one of the best arms in the draft but fell due to his bonus demands. He went to the Mets who have a few more dollars than Toronto.

If you want to criticize JP, do it on a level playing field.

Hamels was picked after Adams but signed for $2 million and had broken his arm pitching 2 years before the draft. I'd say that was a fairly risky pick.

At least JP did not pick highschooler John Mayberry Jr as did Seattle (28th). He wanted $3 million and did not sign. Ouch.

Perception of value is as important as value itself when drafting

I can't say I agree with that. Perception of value is significant, but much less important than value itself. A team might just get stuck with a draft, and if he's no good, he's no good, regardless what 20 other teams thought at the time he was drafted.

Lopez was also a "budget" pick, before MLB suggested slot bonuses. His upside two years after being drafted was still realistic but I think he was handled wrong, maybe it would not have mattered but he should have spent at least two more years in the minors before playing in the Show.

I think high school picks should be considered but kids with attitude problems should be avoided, especially the 1st round.

Jim Callis had an article in mid July that someone here has already alluded to that compared RHP only and the difference is not that great. The Jays had a very enviable record of 1st round draft picks playing in the Show and the majority of them were high school players. Some had a cup of coffee, Witt & Lopez, and others have been pretty good - Karsay, Green, Stewart, does anyone remember that we had two 1st round picks that year & the college outfielder washed out, and a couple of all stars on our current roster plus the starting RF. Prior to going on the prep binge the Jays had drafted Ed Sprague, Eddie Zoskie and another college RHP, Gonzalez??, who reached the show for a couple of appearances. I think the best player available in the 1st round should be taken, college or prep, and excluding either group 100% as the Jays have nearly done will be detrimental in the long run. Prior to JP we had some impact guys but little depth and since we have more depth & much less impact. Purcey will add to the impact side of the ledger while the 1st base/senior RHP/DH/LF players taken after the ist round will add more depth. If Thigpen masters a position other that 1st or LF than he too may be an impact player as well. This was said to be a weak field so this may have been as good as there was but the Jays again excluded a very viable group of players.

Perception of value is significant, but much less important than value itself.

Let me rephrase. Potential value is as important to consider as expected value.

Using Chris Woodward versus Chris Gomez as a comparison. Yes Woodward has struggled but he's already produced a major league season in which he had a .799 ops and 13 homeruns. Will he do that if you keep playing him? Maybe not but he might and he might do even better. Chris Gomez on the other hand will probably be steadier given his experience but if he approaches an .800 ops it will be a big surprise. If Woodward produces then his trade value is tangible. If Gomez produces his trade value is still fairly low.

If you're in the Jays current positon of not being in competition for a playoff spot, which do you choose? I think it's clear that you'd rather have the tangible trade value than steady play leading to a record which still has you missing the playoffs by a lot. At least in one instance you took a shot at giving yourself a significant asset.

Similarly, if you have a Russ Adams who you know will be steady and maybe even good but in the long run probably won't be a player who is a "difference maker" (see BJ Upton) then it is at least worth your while to consider taking a player who MIGHT be a difference maker but it just isn't as obvious right now.

The draft is a crapshoot. The best you can do is to try and tilt the odds in your favour. The LA drafts prior to the last few were total disasters. How do we know that they didn't just luck out the last few years? Someone mentioned above that Adams did not project to be a Nomar. Did Nomar project to be a Nomar? 11 players were taken ahead of him in 1994. 5 are no longer in baseball (including two HS SS) and the other six are nothing special. Nomar's first 2 seasons in the minors are comparable to Aaron Hill's. He then exploded in his 3rd year. My point is that you just never know.

PS Nomar was drafted out of college (Georgia Tech).

"I am not sure I understand the arguments comparing Adams with Kazmir. It doesn't do anything to answer the question posed: Highschool vs. College. If Adams had 25 homers right now, would that mean College players are a better bet?"

Dudek, your starting a whole new arguement, were talking about the quality of the player not the price tag. Kazmir and Hamels could be aces down the road, and were good picks the Jays could of considered.

"This just shows that you have an extremely short memory, or you don't have the first clue what you're talking about. When Adams was drafted, his upside was about what Rickie Weeks's is, maybe a hair less."

I couldn't disagree with you more. Weeks has siginficantly higher upside than Adams, IMO. Power being one reason. He may not be showing it in AA thus far, but I wouldn't be surprised if he develops 15-20 HR power consistently. I can't say the same for Adams.

"His upside (his *reasonable* upside... there is always the chance someone will do an Ian Kinsler) was somewhere on the spectrum between Toby Harrah and Edgar Renteria, I'd say. It remains there... not quite Barry Larkin, but not David Eckstein. (Adams is a pretty big shortstop, incidentally, for those who have not seen him)."

A stats
R. Adams: .279/.380/.388, 258 AB, 38 BB, 27 K, 3 HR, age 21
Eckstein: .306/.428/.398, 503 AB, 87 BB, 51 K, 3 HR, age 23

AA stats
R. Adams: .277/.349/.387, 271 AB, 30 BB, 37 K, 4 HR, age 22
Eckstein: .313/.440/.416, 483 AB, 89 BB, 48 K, 6 HR, age 24

AAA stats
R. Adams: .274/.348/.389, 321 AB, 35 BB, 38 K, 1 HR, age 23
Eckstein: .257/.378/.342, 474 AB, 69 BB, 46 K, 4 HR, age 25

MLB stats
R. Adams: N/A
Eckstein: .282/.350/.359, 1950 AB

How is my Eckstein comparison off base? They both show similar skill sets, and virtually no siginficant "tools" advantage for either. Adams has more doubles power, which can be attributed to size as you mentioned, while Eckstein has shown a slightly better ability to make contact, and more BB than K. Both are pretty much "what you see is what you get" type players, very little room for upside improvement (barring Adams "bulking up" and pulling a Bret Boone, though that type of bulking up would require a good drug supplier, I would assume).

Personally, if Adams has a career average of .280/.350/.360 (like Eckstein), he would have fulfilled my expectations of him completely. If he does significantly better, I'll be surprised (and happy).

"I don't have very much hope of Adams reaching his upside. But then, that's better than Felipe Lopez, who I think has literally zero chance of reaching his much-talked about "upside"."

Give Lopez everyday at bats, and see what he does. He's shown power and ability to make contact in the minors, and he's only 24. If Lopez reaches his upside, he's a top level SS. That's a risk some team will be willing to take. If he doesn't, well, good move in hindsight for JP.

I don't have much problem with Aaron Hill. He's no BJ Upton but I think he's going to be a fine player wherever he ends up and almost certainly a better hitter than Russ Adams.

LA's last three drafts compared to the drafts before have a very important difference. The drafts before were run by someone else with Kevin Malone as a GM, a guy who pretty much almost ran the Dodgers into the ground but they aren't hurting too badly since they're still able to carry a $100 million payroll. When Dan Evans took over he installed Logan White to oversee the draft and they've been pretty darn successful since.

Drafts may be crapshoots at a certain level but quality of scouts and decision making will still rule how successful you are in the long run. I don't think it's a fluke that the Jays' successful run of first round picks had Tim Wilken in an influential position and I don't think the good depth the system is building up now is independent of the approach that JP and the front office are taking.

But then we already know that JP will be open to selecting high school players early on at some point. I think with the lower levels of the system as deep as they are now though that people have a point in asking why not start opening yourself up to high school players now instead of letting them slip to the good scouting teams like LA? Rios, Quiroz, and McGowan are proof that the Jays CAN develop younger players to suit their philosophy and provide high upside at the same time.

"This just shows that you have an extremely short memory, or you don't have the first clue what you're talking about. When Adams was drafted, his upside was about what Rickie Weeks's is, maybe a hair less"

Is he for real? Richie Weeks compared to Adams lol

How is my Eckstein comparison off base? They both show similar skill sets, and virtually no siginficant "tools" advantage for either. Adams has more doubles power, which can be attributed to size as you mentioned, while Eckstein has shown a slightly better ability to make contact, and more BB than K.

The age you have listed beside each players' minor league numbers are very significant. Eckstein was two years older than Adams at every stop. Men continue to mature and develop signifcant size and strength through their mid 20's so I would definately place Adams' ceiling as significantly higher than Eckstein's based on those numbers. You can already see a spike in Adams' doubles this year.

That being said, Adams never had Rickie Weeks type potential. Weeks clearly had the best college career out of anyone available in '02 and projected both average and power wise to easily outdistance Adams. There was an argument for Weeks going first overall before Delmon Young and I think taking Russ Adams first overall would have been met with ambulance attendants hauling off the Devil Rays' front office to the looney bin.

"Is he for real? Richie Weeks compared to Adams lol"

I agree. Very bad comparison.

How about this comparison. Aaron Hill and Rickie Weeks (though if Weeks keeps getting HBP at the rate he is he may not have a major league career).

R. Billie, I agree. Draft picks are like stocks, and a team's tolerance of risk will depend on its situation. The Jays' position now allows them to assume more risk than 3 years ago. Whether that be wild college lefties with blazing fastballs or 6'3" 170 lb. 17 year old outfielders who can run like the wind.

I must say though that among the string of college pitchers taken in the first 15 rounds of the 2002 and 2003 drafts-Bush, Maureau, Peterson, Pleiness, Roga, Banks, Marcum, Isenberg, James, Core, Mulholland, Vermilyea, Mastny, Matt Foster, and Jeremy Harper, I see 5-6 major leaguers and some quite good ones in there. Bearing in mind that they start in the second round, that would be a terrific result. If picking college pitchers with those results makes you a draft conservative, then mark me in that column.

How is my Eckstein comparison off base?

Your Eckstein comparison is off base because it's entirely based on what Adams has done after the draft. News flash S.K.: At the time of the draft, those numbers are not available. Craig rightly argues Adams' upside at the time of the draft based on his collegiate record.

Fine. I shall fix the italics.

If you listen to him enough you'll notice that JP always underplays his prospects. The biggest praise he gives is something like " we think he might be a special player".

Yeah Mike those pitchers work for me. (no italics)

What if in the next two years Adams added enough drive to his swing to be more like a Chuck Knoublach or Frank Catalanatto type player? He is currently taller than Eckstein by three or four inches (very significant) and slightly taller than either of Knoublach or Catalanatto. He hasn't been overmatched at any level yet with his K/BB rate around 1:1 and a relatively low rate of striking out.

As long as he was competent at shortstop or second base that certainly makes him a fairly valuable player. I would be very surprised if he wasn't a consistent 40 doubles player by the time he hits his prime. Heck he's already on pace for 40 doubles this year I think and won't turn 24 until the end of August.

Adams's last season at North Carolina is quite comparable to Rickie Weeks's last season at Southern once you make the proper adjustments. It's one data point - but it's a good indicator of upside. Adams was seen, generally, as a superior defensive player to Weeks which makes up for Weeks having a few months in age.

A better comparison for Weeks is Khalil Greene, actually (the guy who was taken one spot ahead of Adams). RA wasn't quite at Weeks's level with the bat; Greene was better than Weeks with the bat.

Maybe my numbers are wrong but it seems to me Weeks is over two years younger than Adams unless his listed birthday of 9.13.82 on Baseball Cube is mistaken (compare to Adams' 8.30.80).

His final college season also read .500/.619/.987 for a 1606 ops in 158 at bats. That also included 13 doubles, 8 triples, and 16 homeruns to go with a 46/17 BB/K ratio.

Adams' final season read .370/.476/.555 in 254 at bats. 20 doubles, 3 triples, 7 homers and a 52/19 BB/K though in almost 100 more at bats.

I'm not sure what affect the adjustments would have but I have a difficult time seeing how Russ Adams could be put near the same level of Weeks based on this data point. Was level of competition that much of a disparity?

Another Draft tidbit: The Yankees drafted Mark Prior in Sup 1st rd of 1998...

Sorry, in comparing the age of Weeks and Adams I should have said they were over a year apart at the time they were drafted. Of course Weeks is two years younger but he was also drafted a year later.

Craig maintained that Adams' current projection is on a Renteria type curve, and I disagree with that

I never said that. I said Renteria (or something on a midpoint between Toby Harrah and Edgar Renteria) was Adams's upside.

Adams has some serious defensive work to do to match Renteria. His offense is roughly comparable but a small distance behind. If he's going to be Edgar Renteria, he needs to get his fanny in gear.

He is currently taller than Eckstein by three or four inches (very significant)

Adams is half a foot taller than David Eckstein. I'm not big on measuring potential by height, but Adams has loads of room to fill out.

R Billie, the level of competition is nowhere near similar. Weeks was the equivalent of 14-year-old Danny Almonte playing with 11-year-olds.

On this whole Adams debate I think we should all defer to JP on this one. As someone noted, at the time of the draft JP said that in his mind the closest comp. for Adams was Walt Weiss. I think the comparison is extremely apt, except that, to date, Adams hasn't shown the same ability with the glove. I think that JP knew exactly what he was getting when he drafted Adams which was a relatively low ceiling low risk pick. Given the middle infield situation in Toronto and in the minors at the time it was a completely defensible pick. I don't think you can look at either Hill or Purcey in the same way. I don't think that, other than Adams, the organization has completely ignored upside. I guess what I'm saying is that I think both sides of this debate have a point - Adams was a low ceiling low risk pick (justifyable in trying to restock a depleted farm system) but that generally the picks haven't gone that route.

Craig, I'll admit I don't know the first thing about college data comparisons, but my gut feeling is that Weeks would lose something in translation when adjusting his stats to Adams level of competition - I just think there is always a ceiling in baseball stats and Weeks may have reached it - If Delgado went back to Southern University its not like he's going to post a .4000 OPS which I would hazard as a guess would be required to have a Major league equivalent .eqa of whatever he had in 2003 - If Weeks truly was an Almonte equaivalent, then its still unfair to expect that he should have had a .2000 OPS, IMO

Anyways, I'm not sure if I making a coherent point, but its just a thought that triggered reading this discussion

Craig, I'll admit I don't know the first thing about college data comparisons, but my gut feeling is that Weeks would lose something in translation when adjusting his stats to Adams level of competition - I just think there is always a ceiling in baseball stats and Weeks may have reached it

But I do. At least, I understand something. I need to get my 2002 adjusted stats out of cold storage. :) I remember Adams being very, very high (I could be wrong; my memory sometimes plays tricks with the old numbers, but I'm pretty sure...)

Weeks ranked third overall among hitters in 2003; he was #1 by adjusted OWP but I've redone my numbers using a better metric and Weeks actually lost some ground.

Craig, I'll admit I don't know the first thing about college data comparisons, but my gut feeling is that Weeks would lose something in translation when adjusting his stats to Adams level of competition - I just think there is always a ceiling in baseball stats and Weeks may have reached it

But I do. At least, I understand something. I need to get my 2002 adjusted stats out of cold storage. :) I remember Adams being very, very high (I could be wrong; my memory sometimes plays tricks with the old numbers, but I'm pretty sure...)

Weeks ranked third overall among hitters in 2003; he was #1 by adjusted OWP but I've redone my numbers using a better metric and Weeks actually lost some ground.

I think R.Billie's post #212846 concerning prospects as assets illustrates very well the lack of impact prospects we have in our system. As he pointed out LA has several young guys who other teams now covet. Can the same really be said about anyone in ours system? For all their strikeouts, wins and great ratios none of our "future pitchers" make BA's weekly top prospect list. Same goes with our high OBP guys like Roberts. I really don't care how we obtain prospects but all this acquired depth from the 2002 & 2003 drafts won't be scaring the Yankees anytime soon. Bush & Banks are the only two serious guys from those drafts who appear to have the potential to pitch near the middle of a contending rotation. And I disagree with the point that some make that a high school player's development time is not worth the wait. Its called player development, not player race. Look at the guys at Dunedin this year, Negron & Tablado, they are now starting to progress and the Jays may have something with them. Far more so than Roberts or Tingler.

Dean, Negron was a 1st round pick and Tablado was a 4th round pick. Tingler was, I believe, a 10th rounder and Roberts a 17th rounder. You have to compare apples with apples.

my 2 cents, roberts and tingler have only been in the system for just over a year, negron and tablado have been getting pro coaching/instruction for the past four years and are also used to the wear and tear of a full season in the minors compared to a college season

Hamels missed time earlier this year with arm trouble and has been on the DL for over a month with another arm problem. Gee, I wish the Blue Jays took more high school pitchers.

http://www.baseballamerica.com/today/columnists/askba04june.html
COMN

"Surgery" is the total of pitchers who required arm surgery within five years of their draft year.

First-Round Pitchers, 1990-98
Group Total Avg/Better Pct. Above-Avg Pct. Surgery Pct.
High School 48 13 27% 3 6% 25 52%
College 72 22 31% 8 11% 34 47%
High School LHP 13 2 15% 1 8% 7 54%
College LHP 22 7 32% 3 14% 11 50%
High School RHP 35 11 31% 2 6% 18 51%
College RHP 50 15 30% 5 10% 23 46%

i'll try again

group - total - avg/better - pct.
high school - 48 - 13 - 27%
college - 72 - 22 - 31%
hs lhp - 13 - 2 - 15%
coll lhp - 22 - 7 - 32%
hs rhp - 35 - 11 - 31%
coll rhp - 50 - 15 - 30%

group - total - above avg - pct.
high school - 48 - 3 - 6%
college - 72 - 6 - 11%
hs lhp - 13 - 1 - 8%
coll lhp - 22 - 3 - 14%
hs rhp - 35 - 2 - 6%
coll rhp - 50 - 5 - 10%

group - total - surgery - pct.
high school - 48 - 25 - 52%
college - 72 - 34 - 47%
hs lhp - 13 - 7 - 54%
coll lhp - 22 - 11 - 50%
hs rhp - 35 - 18 - 51%
coll rhp - 50 - 23 - 46%

I think R.Billie's post #212846 concerning prospects as assets illustrates very well the lack of impact prospects we have in our system. As he pointed out LA has several young guys who other teams now covet. Can the same really be said about anyone in ours system? For all their strikeouts, wins and great ratios none of our "future pitchers" make BA's weekly top prospect list. Same goes with our high OBP guys like Roberts. I really don't care how we obtain prospects but all this acquired depth from the 2002 & 2003 drafts won't be scaring the Yankees anytime soon. Bush & Banks are the only two serious guys from those drafts who appear to have the potential to pitch near the middle of a contending rotation. And I disagree with the point that some make that a high school player's development time is not worth the wait. Its called player development, not player race. Look at the guys at Dunedin this year, Negron & Tablado, they are now starting to progress and the Jays may have something with them.

Ricciardi and some of the people here are looking at ETA and ability to reach the majors with immediate mediocrity. Myself, the poster I'm quoting, and others are looking for quality over quantity, and that's the issue here. It's only been three drafts, so I'll cut Ricciardi some slack, but if you see any high upside players in our system currently not drafted by Gord Ash's regime, than you're looking through some deep rose colored glasses. We're seeing, if everything goes right, a bunch of relievers, #4 starters, and replacement level/average hitters (although I like Aaron Hill, not as a 3B though).

I can't for the life of me understand how developing replacement level talent is somehow a stroke of drafting genius. Our system isn't even filled with tradeable assets (drafted by Ricciardi), like some have suggested. I'm not against drafting college players. If they're good, draft them. I am against drafting low end college players without even looking at a possible high upside high school player that may be available. That's why our system is so one dimensional. If Ricciardi's goal was to clog up the system with close to ready talent, and then try and draft high school players when we don't have to count of them, I hope we see that in the near future.

A good combination may have been the prior regime's drafting with Ricciardi managing the major league roster. For all the flack the "drafting high school players in the early rounds" method gets, I don't see too many people complaining when we produced high level players all those years.

Hamels missed time earlier this year with arm trouble and has been on the DL for over a month with another arm problem. Gee, I wish the Blue Jays took more high school pitchers.

Yeah, because college pitchers never get arm problems.

Hamels missed time earlier this year with arm trouble and has been on the DL for over a month with another arm problem. Gee, I wish the Blue Jays took more high school pitchers.

Yeah, because college pitchers never get arm problems.

As I recall, you were whining that the Jays should have taken Hamels (one of your examples) instead of Adams. Given that Hamels has spent more than half this season on the DL with arm trouble, I'm not sure what your point is. Are you arguing that the Jays need more hurt pitchers in their farm system?

Meanwhile, David Bush - drafted about 30 picks after Hamels - is in the big leagues and pitching well. Which of those two pitchers do you think the Phillies would prefer to have right now?

"As I recall, you were whining that the Jays should have taken Hamels (one of your examples) instead of Adams. Given that Hamels has spent more than half this season on the DL with arm trouble, I'm not sure what your point is. Are you arguing that the Jays need more hurt pitchers in their farm system?

This is what you said after mentioning Hamels having injury problems:

"Gee, I wish the Blue Jays took more high school pitchers."

That's the equivalent of me saying "Jason Arnold is hurt...gee, I wish the Jays took more college pitchers". Hamels being hurt has nothing to do with being drafted out of high school. He broke his arm early in his sophmore year of HS. He recovered from that, but he's not immune to injury, any more than a college pitcher is. How about pitchers like Jerome Williams, Edwin Jackson, Greg Miller, Gavin Floyd, Scott Kazmir, J.D. Durbin, etc. Would you wish the Jays drafted any of these guys? How you can use one injured starter to make such a conclusive statement about selecting high school pitchers is beyond me.

And yes, I'd rather have Hamels than Adams from a talent standpoint. Adams is not a difference making middle infielder. His defense is not good enough to play SS (he'll probably start there but move eventually) and his offensive potential is not that good. He can be a solid player, but his selection was low risk, low upside. That really can't be argued.

Meanwhile, David Bush - drafted about 30 picks after Hamels - is in the big leagues and pitching well. Which of those two pitchers do you think the Phillies would prefer to have right now?

Hamels. Not even close. Unlike you and Ricciardi, the Phillies are willing to wait for something potentially very good or great, instead of something okay or decent. If Hamels doesn't work out, they'll try again in another draft. Gavin Floyd, high school lefty, doesn't appear to be making them look bad right now.

How about pitchers like Jerome Williams, Edwin Jackson, Greg Miller, Gavin Floyd, Scott Kazmir, J.D. Durbin, etc. Would you wish the Jays drafted any of these guys?

Jackson and Miller are on the DL right now; Miller hasn't pitched this year. Durbin missed two months. All had/have arm problems.

Hamels. Not even close. Unlike you and Ricciardi, the Phillies are willing to wait for something potentially very good or great, instead of something okay or decent.

Yeah, I'm sure that the thought that Hamels might be very good or great in two or three or five years is really comforting to them as they look for another starter to try to win this year.

Jackson and Miller are on the DL right now; Miller hasn't pitched this year. Durbin missed two months. All had/have arm problems.

And....?? That takes away from their potential how? Are they serious, career threatening injuries? I could name college pitchers who are injured or have been injured too. Newsflash, pitching is hard on the arm.

If your classification of a good pitching prospect includes an arm that is immune to injury, you're either dillusional or...well, dillisional seems to cover it.

Yeah, I'm sure that the thought that Hamels might be very good or great in two or three or five years is really comforting to them as they look for another starter to try to win this year.

Great logic. A team wanting to win a division calling upon a middle of the pack pitching prospect to fill the bottom end of their rotation will surely be something they would have considered. You're right. Would you have said this if Bush went 5 ip, 7 er against Oakland? Probably not. Holy small sample size.

Bush is not a 2.00-something ERA pitcher. One great start against the A's and he's the savior of a pennant race? Wow. He's a solid arm, middle or bottom of the rotation inning eater from the looks of it. Not bad at all. Not great either.

Pitchers like Bush are easier to find than the potential of a pitcher like Hamel. Plain and simple. The Phillies are willing to wait. If Hamels pans out, it was worth it. If not, try again later. College arms flame out too, despite what Michael Lewis may have tried to tell you.

This is not a race. "Yahh, my middle of the pack draft pick made it up to the majors before your blue chipper, na, na, na, na, naaaa". Not how it works. A team like the Phillies (or the Jays pre-JP) drafted based on upside and potential success. If it doesn't work in one instance, try again later. College or high school, take your pick. Don't settle for anything based on ETA. Oops, too late JP.

I'm more than willing to give JP a chance to prove me wrong. But developing a bunch of good relievers, average hitters, and bottom end starters is not proving me wrong.