Batter's Box Interactive Magazine - Cubs 2, Jays 0: The Other Halladay

On May 29, Roy Halladay took the mound against the Minnesota Twins in the Rogers Centre. Two hours and eight minutes later, Matt LeCroy swung and missed at Halladay's 99th pitch, completing the two-hit shutout. Halladay's game score that game was 93, the highest game score to date this season. Halladay is also in a tie for second-highest game score this season (with Brad Radke), from his complete-game 3-hit shutout of the Yankees on April 29.

Well, that Halladay didn't show up yesterday. Just like his last game, Roy struggled to shut out his opponent. Unlike in Oakland, though, Roy received no run support from his 7 batters and Huckaby, and he get saddled with the loss.

Aaron Hill, of course, continued to perform, with 1/3 of both the team's hits and walks (and only 1/10th its strikeouts). The last time a hitter came up and impressed like this is — well, Josh Phelps, actually, and given that he's just been designated for assignment from his third team in two seasons, you know that didn't turn out too well.

Come to think of it, when's the last time a highly touted prospect came up to the big leagues, then consistently produced for the next few years?

Let's start in 2002, J.P. Ricciardi's first season with the Jays. This is during the Great Salary Jettison of '02 (memorable quote: "why did J.P Ricciardi trade away Billy Koch to Oakland for what I feel to be practically nothing?" and I won't mention Daniel Rosario's name so he won't live in infamy forever), punctuated by such great memories as Prokopec admitting he was hurt (then never pitching again) and Mondesi sitting thanks to being late for a practice.

Many of you probably remember Brandon Lyon. I remember him being an up-and-coming pitcher of the future, a great player on which to base the franchise. Stephen Tomlinson thought so too, even listing Lyon's major-league debut game (and first win) of August 4, 2001 on his list of "Memorable Games." (Lyon started in place of another name fans from the Gord Ash Era will cherish, Joey Hamilton. Hamilton was released, and Lyon started in his place.)

In an astonishing turn of events, though, Lyon proceeded to implode all over the majors and AAA in 2002, to the point that he was placed on waivers by the Blue Jays, then claimed by the Red Sox. After bouncing around during the 2003 season (he was traded to the Pirates, then traded back), he seems to have found a home in Arizona closing games. Maybe.

Of course, there is the always-enignmatic Josh Phelps. 2002 was his first real season of work, and he made the most of it, hitting .309/.362/.562. He was the 2003 Baseball Prospectus cover boy, and I believe everyone knows the story from this point (declining power, declining OBP, declining stock in the organization).

Oh, Felipe Lopez. What could have been. You have to wonder — if Mondesi and Lopez had never occupied the same clubhouse, would things have been different? His pretty good 2001 debut was followed up by a somewhat worse 2002, and he was then involved in a 4-way trade which sent Durazo to the A's and Arnold to the Jays. Cincinatti, of course, received Lopez, who has made some significant strides (to say the least). If he had performed like he is now in 2003 — like everyone thought he was capable of, or maybe even better — I don't think the Jays draft Aaron Hill.

And, well, I think you have to consider The Man With The Gold Glove here too. While Vernon Wells' real breakout year was 2003, he played the whole season in Toronto in 2002, and performed decently: .275/.305/.457. That .243 GPA turned into .290 the next year, but dove back down to .261 in 2004. Of course, everyone here is likely aware of Wells' performance this season; his .246 GPA has come all the way back down to 2002 performance, albeit over much less than a full season. In 2003, Vernon was a bit young to be having a career year (which usually happens around age 27), but it sure looks as though that was the mirage, not the oasis.

And what list of 2002 players would be complete without Daniel Rosario's favourite player, Eric Hinske? The Dude lived up to his future nickname in 2002, compiling a .275 GPA and receiving Rookie of the Year for his efforts. He fell to a Wellsian .249 GPA the next year, and a positively Huckabian .226 the year after. He's rebounded this year, all the way up to .249 again; the two players signed at the same time shall play at the same level, I suppose.

There are some other players of interest in 2002, but I'll leave that to you. I'd like to forge on to 2003, the last truly happy time for many Jays fans.

If Aquilino Lopez is not a familiar name to you, you probably weren't enough paying attention. He was a Rule V pick from the Mariners, who apparently soured on him after he aged several years overnight (it's astonishing what those birth certificates will do to your skin elasticity). Unlike Jason DuBois in 2004 (who should really learn to pronounce his last name correctly), this Rule V draft pick stuck, and he pitched 73 2/3 innings for the Jays, striking out 64 and walking 34. For a while Lopez acted as the closer without being "the closer"; his save total of 14 attests to the fact that Tosca eventually gave him the nod.

The year after, Ricciardi had picked up what many believed to be pretty significant upgrades on the bullpen, and Aquilino, while not necessarily the "closer" anymore, would be an integral part of this bullpen, a strong arm who could get guys out. Except he couldn't do that as well anymore; he stopped striking out as many people, and started walking more. He was granted his free agency in 2004, and was signed by the Dodgers. He hasn't appeared in a major-league game this season, but for Las Vegas this year, he's once again started missing bats and has walked many, many fewer.

Other than Aquilino's future performance, not much went wrong in 2003, though. Cliff Politte started giving up way, way too many home runs, but the Jays, by and large had a good year in 2003.

Rather than talk specifically about people called up in 2004, I'd like to talk about the men who were supposed to be part of the future, but who haven't put it all together.

Jason Arnold, as I mentioned above, has struggled a lot since we received him for Lopez. Gross has failed to perform at the major-league level. Adam Peterson was called up from AA, cratered, and his remaining parts made bigger craters as they fell back down to AAA. Brandon League looks like he might be able to avoid the Adam Peterson career path, but the jury's still out. Eric Crozier is gone. Simon Pond is gone. Terry Adams is gone. (Wait, that's a good thing.)

Even many established players have struggled. Batista and Lilly, who admittedly don't necessarily have the best record of consistency, have alternately shown their pretty side or the ugly, acid-burned side that they cover up with make-up, just like no comic book character that I've ever heard about. Where are the success stories? For an organization that is supposed to be about building, why do I see so much crumbling and wreckage?

There are some players you can't keep down. Look at Halladay - after his rebirth in 2001, he's been just about unstoppable. On his bad days he's usually better than the rest of the league. On his good days you may as well leave your bat on your shoulder. O-Dog, too: my mind is still blown from some plays he makes. Reed Johnson is, well, Sparky: he does what he does, and he does it well. Maybe Hill will be one of these types of players. I just get the feeling that these players are making it in spite of the organization, not because of it. There are always a lot of hard-luck stories in baseball; TINSTAAPP, and so on. Not everyone has the mental makeup or physical ability to make it, even those people selected in the first round. "Can't miss" prospects miss all the time. But I'm still worried.

Hill might be the second coming of Nomar, or he might be the second coming of Joe Lawrence. (Wait, scratch that last option.) In either case, he's going to need the support to help him adjust to the league's adjustments to him, and this organization has just not shown that it's capable of getting players to take that next step.

Is it all bad luck? To be expected? A mirage?

Posted by Joe on Thursday, June 09 2005 @ 08:00 AM EDT.

Cubs 2, Jays 0: The Other Halladay | 75 comments | Create New Account

The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.

Jordan - Thursday, June 09 2005 @ 10:53 AM EDT (#119210) #

A few quick thoughts on Joe's concerns, which are not without merit:

- This situation is, I think, faced by a number of teams. Clubs across baseball struggle to unlock the potential of talented young players or to train them properly at the big-league level (since that's where most training of any value takes place these days). It would be worth looking into whether some teams are more successful than others in maximizing the on-field value of their prospects. But how do you separate the talent from the training? And how do you assess the influence of each?

- A disctinction should probably also be drawn between those former Jays who have prospered after being jettisoned and those who haven't. Jayson Werth, for example, looks like he could well develop into a useful player, while Josh Phelps, as I noted yesterday, has received the ultimate career insult of being waived by Tampa Bay. Cesar Izturis would look great in a Jays uniform, certainly, but it doesn't seem like the team gave up on Chris Woodward too quickly. The jury is definitely still out on Brandon Lyon, and I'd like to see Felipe Lopez keep this up a little while longer. And keep in mind, players like Izturis, Lopez and Werth weren't thrown away, but were dealt for what appeared at the time (and still might be) equal or greater value.

- Prospects are always overhyped, by nature: what is a "prospect" but a bundle of hoped-for potential and forecast expectations? The Jays have a proud history of overhyped prospects -- Syl Campusano leaps to mind, but so do such one-time rising stars as Glenallen Hill and Mark Whiten. But other teams go through this, too: Joe Crede and Joe Borchard have been annual disappointments for the White Sox, while the Twins once had about a zillion young outfielders in their system, most of whom are now platooning for various last-place ballclubs. Remember the Giants' Big Three: Jerome Williams, Jesse Foppert and Kurt Ainsworth? And the guys at Baseball Prospectus probably still flinch whenever someone mentions Jeremy Giambi.

It's tough to figure out who'll be a good player, and the combination of circumstances to produce a star is almost impossible to produce on purpose. The Jays' current keystone combination features a first-rounder and a 50th-rounder, and that pretty much says everything you need to know about the vagaries of the game. On balance, I think the Blue Jays have been no worse than most other organizations, and have been better than some (could anyone but Brian Butterfield have helped the O-Dog become a Gold Glover in training?). Three years from now, when we look back on the careers (or non-careers) of Adams, Hill, Gross, Bush, Rosario, League, Banks, McGowan, Romero, Purcey and Jackson, we'll know whether or not the Jays could or could not maximize value from their prospects.

Mike Green - Thursday, June 09 2005 @ 11:51 AM EDT (#119213) #

It is difficult to measure objectively the success or failure of an organization in choosing and developing players. The time lines are long, and the differences between organizations at least now are not huge.

The interesting issue for me right now is development patterns for pitching prospects- i.e. guidelines for amount of time at each level, sending prospects back down...

It's not a new issue. The Jays of the early 90s did everything right except for the ridiculously ambitious promotions of pitching prospects- Huck Flener, Brad Cornett...There have been no egregiously bad decisions like these recently, but the handling of Peterson, League, Gaudin and Bush (and the apparently successfully promotion of Chacin) raises questions.

Thomas - Thursday, June 09 2005 @ 12:32 PM EDT (#119218) #

I always cringe now whenever someone mentions Huck Flener. Such a tragic story.

In a transaction that probably escaped most people's notice but which brought a smile to my face, the Nationals called up Rick Short.

Who is Rick Short? Well, this Expos farmhand is 32 years old and has never played in the majors. He is in his 12th season in the minors and has 1,235 career hits in the minors.

Short may not be here for long and he may never comeback, but the next few days will likely make the past decade worth it. i'm cheering for him.

Jim - Thursday, June 09 2005 @ 12:56 PM EDT (#119221) #

I don't really know if there is much to get worked up about here.

Most of the 'disappointments' Joe mentions are really overblown as many of them weren't big time prospects in the first place. For example, I know plenty of folks around here have been waiting for some sort of Gabe Gross explosion. It's not coming.

The draft strategy employed by the front office is not great. Unless the goal is to have as many players who are exactly replacement level. Then all is well.

Craig B - Thursday, June 09 2005 @ 01:29 PM EDT (#119224) #

Jim, that's wrong. Almost completely wrong.

It's true that, like for all teams, Jays prospects tend not to live up to their billing. Fans see players with rose-tinted glasses and tend to engage in wishful thinking. Nothing wrong with that - it gives hope! But it can lead to the conclusion that the performance of a team's young players is disappointing.

The Blue Jays are one of the youngest teams in the majors, and are above .500. That's so rare these days as to be highly noteworthy. So clearly, the performance of the team's young players can't be all that bad.

But you commented specifically on the team's draft strategy, saying it produces "players who are exactly replacement level". Let's look at that remark.

On the team's 25-man roster this year, we've seen

Russ Adams (2002 draftee) - 4.1 VORP
Dave Bush (2002 draftee) - 2.2 VORP
Aaron Hill (2003 draftee) - 6.8 VORP
John McDonald (acquired in a trade for Tom Mastny, 2003 draftee) - 3.4 VORP
Shea Hillenbrand (acquired in a trade for Adam Peterson, 2002 draftee) - 13.5 VORP

The drafts under the new management have so far produced 30 runs' (three wins) worth of value above replacement players so far this season. There's a ton more of help on the way. Sleep easy, everyone.

Jim - Thursday, June 09 2005 @ 02:07 PM EDT (#119232) #

Maybe you think it's wrong.

If you want to start putting the VORP of players who were really traded for nothing in your draft then sure that number will go up.

John McDonald is a player with some uses, but he's waiver wire fodder. It's not as though Cleveland wanted Tom Mastny and paid the huge sum of McDonald.

Hillenbrand was a salary dump plain and simple. He's had a good 2 months, and it's hard to critize the trade. Adam Peterson was not a prospect at the time of the trade.

Russ Adams has a chance to be a good player.
Aaron Hill has a chance to be a very good player.

Please name for me another position player in the system that JP acquired by any means that is going to be an above average major leaguer for 5 seasons.

They have shown that they can pick college pitchers who can dominate in the low minors. That is the only thing that is guaranteed at this point.

Stellers Jay - Thursday, June 09 2005 @ 02:23 PM EDT (#119236) #

The handling of pitching prosects coming into Toronto has been questionable of late. The League handling in particular irked me. They pronounce before spring training that he had nothing left to learn in the minors and that he has a spot in the bullpen (before he even pitched an inning). Then after 9 1/3 innings it is all of a sudden aparant that he could use some seasoning in Syracuse. Now I don't disagree with his demotion on his performance and the fact that it is better for his long term development to be pitching regular innings in Syracuse. But, I do take issue with the "Hot" and "Cold" treatment of arguabally the number 1 arm in the system. It sends mixed messages to League and to other players within the organization. I would attribute a significant portion of League's early struggles in AAA to the fact that his head was still spinning from what he had been led to believe by the Bluejays brass.

Pepper Moffatt - Thursday, June 09 2005 @ 02:29 PM EDT (#119238) #

How many above average major leaguers should the average team get in one year of drafting? How many should the entire big leagues get?

It would seem to me that there should be about, say, 300 above average major leaguers. Each of those guys should have a career of about 10-12 years, so you'd expect what: 30 above average players from each draft? So if you only get 1, you're average?

Four Seamer - Thursday, June 09 2005 @ 02:40 PM EDT (#119241) #

I don't disagree, Pepper, but I think even that estimate is a bit high. A good portion of those above average major leaguers would be Latin Americans and other international players ineligible for the MLB Draft.

Dean - Thursday, June 09 2005 @ 03:07 PM EDT (#119246) #

Moffat, the system also needs prospects to trade at times to acquire more than a salary dump or spare part. Other than the first two picks from each of JP's drafts the system is bare.
His drafts are no different than the previous regimes, score early and then... Yeah there is Vermilyea, but then there is Chulk. We can play name games all day.

BA says our system lacks impact as does John Sickels. JP let Maybin slide by in the draft, for a system lacking five tool talent I think this was a huge gamble.

I believe Gillick and company only traded away one 1st round pick to bolster the team and that was Steve Karsay. If a team has an impact bat to move and the Jays, along with at least one other team are interested at the trade deadline, who can the Jays offer up, players drafted by JP, other than their top picks? Please be honest. Pitchers without top end stuff that may need work - Perkins - not by JP, a scrappy undersized catcher with questionable defence , we have one of those.

Having Adams, Bush and Hill play in the majors already is great, kudos to JP, but it is not a real improvement over the previous regime as their top picks generally panned out too.

Named For Hank - Thursday, June 09 2005 @ 03:23 PM EDT (#119247) #

Did we all forget that the first order of business when Ricciardi came to Toronto was to restock the farm system and to dump salary at the major league level?

Well, of course to do this he's gone for a lot of players who will be ready in a hurry and are not as much of a gamble. Can you suggest another way to do it that doesn't leave Toronto with a godawful team for five years?

In other words, there is no surprise that the earliest J.P, drafts are yielding non-superstar players that do make it to the majors and contribute but don't blow anyone's mind. Why would it be a surprise when that was the intention the whole way?

Jim, if you so strongly disagree with this method of team rebuilding, please illuminate us with your alternate plan. Make sure to go back to the Jays as they were when J.P. took charge and dump the salary that needs to be dumped while still fielding a team that doesn't completely suck. And make sure that your plan has some certainty to it, which apparently Rogers wanted.

Craig B - Thursday, June 09 2005 @ 03:54 PM EDT (#119251) #

Please name for me another position player in the system that JP acquired by any means that is going to be an above average major leaguer for 5 seasons.

You don't need to get more than one per draft, especially given the emphasis on pitching talent that the Jays have made - part of the point of which is that you get chips to trade for hitters you need.

You're asking for too much! You want multiple above-average position players every year, out of drafts that were dominated by pitching selections. You can demand it until you're blue in the face, but that just does not happen. There isn't a major-league team in history that has a multi-year track record of making pitcher-heavy drafts and getting multiple good position players every year at the same time.

That being said, if you're looking for that guy, I'd keep your eye on Chip Cannon. I've just got a good feeling about him as a late bloomer - nothing I can put into words, but he was a terrific success in college but is only now getting heavily challenged baseball-wise. However, he's got size and strength, great discipline and makeup - which you need to survive at The Citadel, let alone flourish there. He's also on pace to hit nearly 40 home runs this season, so that's nice. But I recognize Cannon's a longshot by a strictly rational analysis.

I'd rather have the outstanding pitching depth, which as I pointed out above has already been turned into a good quality 1B-3B and a useful reserve - who as it turns out, can hit lefties. Saying that Peterson wasn't important to the Hillenbrand deal misses the point - the D-Backs wouldn't have done the deal without Peterson in the first place.

I'm not going to argue this point further - feel free to have the last word.

Jordan - Thursday, June 09 2005 @ 04:10 PM EDT (#119253) #

I believe Gillick and company only traded away one 1st round pick to bolster the team and that was Steve Karsay.

Yes. Part of the reason for that, however, is that first-round draft picks under Gillick weren't often all that hot. Here's a list of all first-rounders from 1983 (the Jays' first contending season) through 1993 (their last World Series year):

1983: Matt Stark
1984: no pick
1985: Greg David
1986: Earl Sanders
1987: Alex Sanchez
1988: Ed Sprague
1989: Eddie Zosky
1990: Steve Karsay
1991: Shawn Green
1992: Shannon Stewart
1992: Todd Steverson
1993: Chris Carpenter

Gillick struck gold in '91 and '92, but neither Green nor Stewart had gotten on track even by mid-'93. And teams can't trade their draft picks the same year they sign them anyway. Pat's conservatism in trading first-rounders can be traced in large part to a simple lack of results.

JP let Maybin slide by in the draft, for a system lacking five tool talent I think this was a huge gamble.

The Jays' system does have five-tool talent. Miguel Negron has a world of it. Yuber Rodriquez could make Negron look like a chump. Alex Rios virtually oozes tools. Vince Perkins could be a front-of-the-rotation guy, someday. But all these guys are projects, as is virtually every five-tool talent available past the top three picks in the draft. Drafting raw talent is nothing but a gamble, and despite the payroll increase, the Jays still aren't in a position to do that. It's far better to acquire other teams' major-league multi-tool talent, and the easiest way to do that is with a plethora of polished, refined talent that the other team can put to work immediately to prove it received quality return for the departed star.

Mike Green - Thursday, June 09 2005 @ 04:21 PM EDT (#119254) #

Dean, you've overstated the case.

Start with the 2002 draft. JP's 1st two selections have panned out. Almost every other team had one bust among their first 2 selections. In particular, here's how the second round went. From Round 3-20, there were precisely 3 players that would interest me now (I might have missed one or two), Curtis Granderson and Joel Zumaya chosen by the Tigers and Brandon McCarthy from the Sox. Now it may be that there is someone else from the 2002 draft currently in A ball and ready to break out, but that seems to be a poor basis for judging draft success. How many teams in retrospect had better drafts than the Jays did, bearing in mind draft order? Looking back, I think it's fair to say that it was a poor draft year generally.

Move to 2003. You've got Hill, Banks, Marcum, Isenberg, Roberts, Vermilyea, Chiaravallotti from the Jays side. How many teams did better, again bearing in mind draft order?

It's way, way too early to tell about 2004. Take David Purcey. John Sickels had him rated as an A- prospect at the beginning of this year. I have no idea whether he's going to be great, or whether he will never make the majors. Time will tell that.

Mick Doherty - Thursday, June 09 2005 @ 04:49 PM EDT (#119255) #

I'd like to propose that part of the problem with the perception of JP's "poor" drafts lies squarely here in the mirror, on Batter's Box, the publication and its contributors and readers.

Frankly, when you get kick-ass nearly realtime comprehensive draft coverage like the kind Pistol produced the past couple of days, it ratchets up expectations to very nearly NFL or NBA draft levels. Not quite, but thanks to outlets like this one -- and the Newberg Report and the SS Mariner and Redbird Nation and SOSH and etc. -- many, many more people now feel qualified to comment on the quality of a team's draft even before it's played out fully.

The fact is, that's a good thing in that it also ratchets up the accountability a GM has to the team's fans (the bottom line) but it also increases exponentially the number of people who comment on the draft in ways undreamt of 20 years ago.

The draft is what, 48 hours old? We will know how good the 2005 Toronto draft really was around July, 2016 and can probably start calling JP on his 2006 draft decisions sometime in early 2008.

Jim - Thursday, June 09 2005 @ 04:57 PM EDT (#119256) #

'the D-Backs wouldn't have done the deal without Peterson in the first place.'

I'll reply more in depth later, but this is absurd. Substitute any 26 year old pitcher going nowhere with a realtively live arm. There are a probably a half dozen arms in the system that could have taken Peterson's spot in the trade.

Jim - Thursday, June 09 2005 @ 04:59 PM EDT (#119258) #

'I'd like to propose that part of the problem with the perception of JP's "poor" drafts lies squarely here in the mirror, on Batter's Box, the publication and its contributors and readers. '

Thank you for saying that much more clearly then I ever had. I've tried to make the point that the scrutiny given to the minor leagues here is great, but it increases the expectations of players who aren't even a blip on the radar in the rest of the baseball world.

Dean - Thursday, June 09 2005 @ 05:18 PM EDT (#119260) #

Come on Jordan, comparing Negron, who was a budget pick, and Yuber to Maybin is doing the old apple & orange thing. Rios is no longer in the system.

Calling Gillick's first round drafts largely failures is also a reach. Yeah, there were a couple splats, but overall very good. The point is they had talent other than their 1st rounders to use to acquire needed talent. Hill, Whiten, Thompson, Kent etc.

Mike, I readily aknowledged that JP scores with the first couple of picks and I was comparing him to the previous Jays regimes. Other than here, Roberts, Vito, Isenberg, Vermilyea and even Marcum get no ink. Marcum may change soon. With the exception of Marcum and perhaps Vermilyea these are organizational guys and while they maybe part of a package, but paired with whom, they will not attract an impact player.

The Jays are not the Yankees or the Red Sox so they will not be able to take on stupid salary so they are going to have to give up more than a fringe prospect to get that player. Lacking the raw but high ceiling prospects, they need more than a couple because they do tend to crash & burn, means the Jays may have to move a 1st rounder in which they have sunk a lot into.

The Bone - Thursday, June 09 2005 @ 05:32 PM EDT (#119261) #

I think its a disservice to Shea Hillenbrand to call him a "pure salary dump" - He didn't even have a contract when he was traded and while arbitration can overestimate a players worth, it wasnt like he was Jason Kendall - And he could have helped out a number of teams - I think Shea was at least partially traded because the Diamondbacks LIKED Adam PEterson

Named For Hank - Thursday, June 09 2005 @ 05:49 PM EDT (#119262) #

Other than here, Roberts, Vito, Isenberg, Vermilyea and even Marcum get no ink.

... because they're no good, or because no one else cares about the Jays?

Jordan - Thursday, June 09 2005 @ 05:49 PM EDT (#119263) #

comparing Negron, who was a budget pick, and Yuber to Maybin is doing the old apple & orange thing. Rios is no longer in the system.

I'm not comparing them in terms of their talent (Rios and Negron were both overdrafts who belonged in the 2nd or 3rd rounds, not the 1st, while Maybin was widely seen as a legitimate top five pick). I'm comparing them with Maybin in terms of your description of "five-tool talents," which they certainly all are. A lot of those Gillick picks in the '80s were five-tools guys, too. The fact remains that if you draft a young toolsy player, you have a small chance of getting a legitimate star (five years later) and an excellent chance of getting Dave Kryznel.

I honestly don't understand the fascination with having "five-tool" prospects in one's system. Give me one of John Sickels' "seven-skills" players (strike-zone judgment, hitting for power, hitting for average, offensive speed, defensive range, defensive reliability, and throwing utility) any day. I'm not saying raw talent is undesireable -- I like having a few low-budget Rodriquezes and Perkinses around, on the off-chance they explode -- but that kind of talent should be the exception in a good system, not the rule. And it certainly shouldn't cost you a first-round pick when you're edging very close to contention.

Dean - Thursday, June 09 2005 @ 06:19 PM EDT (#119265) #

Jordan, you need both the polished and the raw, Sickels said while analyzing the mock drafts this week that a balanced approach is the best way. Thats all I'm advocating. Maybin was hardly "raw" & I would not want the Jays to take a first round pick on a "raw" highschool player. Using Picks 3 to 50 to take a few would be good, in my opinion. To me college senior = six year free agent. Good things can be had, ala Bush, but generally they = organizational guys. 22 & 23 year old guys tearing up short season & low A tend not to make it as impact players hence my disappointment in JP's drafting approach after the first couple of rounds.

Its not going to work every time, JP tried it in 2002. Lugnut Fan linked an interview with Jon Lalonde at the start of their season. He stated the Jays preference for college guys and mentioned how the two HS guys taken in the first 10 rounds had not progressed out of extended spring training yet. Funny that he forgot to mention what level Pleiness & Marleau were excelling at.

Jim - Thursday, June 09 2005 @ 07:58 PM EDT (#119271) #

'I think Shea was at least partially traded because the Diamondbacks LIKED Adam PEterson'

They sure changed their minds in a hurry.

4/15/05 Designated RHP Adam Peterson for assignment.

uglyone - Thursday, June 09 2005 @ 08:11 PM EDT (#119273) #

I was always a fan of the 6th tool.

You know, the one between the ears.

HollywoodHartman - Thursday, June 09 2005 @ 09:33 PM EDT (#119277) #

Interesting article

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/bbw/columnist/nightengale/2005-06-08-majors_x.htm

If he were to go, what could he bring us?

Jim - Thursday, June 09 2005 @ 09:59 PM EDT (#119280) #

'Jim, if you so strongly disagree with this method of team rebuilding, please illuminate us with your alternate plan.'

I understand that rebuilding the Toronto Blue Jays was a tall order. Riccardi came in and did a tremendous job to shed the salaries of players like Mondesi. I agree with the draft strategy that he employed in his first two drafts. There were few players in the system, and he had to quickly regenerate the farm system. Picking mostly college players was a wise tact, they needed to have players who could possibly contribute quickly at the major league level.

2005 is a different then 2002. This team needs impact players. If I'm running/owning/being a fan of a team, my goal is championships. 7 last place finishes and a title is worth more to me then 8 second place finishes.

I think we can all agree (this might be the only thing we agree on) that the Blue Jays favor college players in the draft. Now, let's take a quick look at the current roster:

Probably little argument here, the best player is Roy Halladay. Halladay was a first round pick (17th overall) by the Jays in 1995. He made his major league debut at the of 21 in 1998.

Most might agree that the second best Blue Jay is CF Vernon Wells. Wells was a first round pick (5th overall) out of high school. He made his major league debut at the age of 20 in 1999.

When the Blue Jays put together their suprise 2003, 2 of the 3 reasons are the two players we just discussed. Carlos Delgado was the third, and was signed as an amature free agent in 1988.

In the 2002 draft the Blue Jays took Russ Adams in the first round with the fourteenth pick. Russ was a moderately well thought of prospect coming through the system. Adams turns 25 years old in August and in about 150 plate appearances this year he is hitting 234/294/406. A quick look at his PECOTA card shows him to not be far from his projection. His 5 year projection shows him as a player who performs at this level pretty much from here on out. After a VORP of 14.1 this year (right about on pace), he drops to 12.2 in 2007 and rebounds to 12.9 in 2009.

In 2002 David Bush was the second round pick. He had a solid debut in 2004, but has already been dispatched back to Syracuse this season. PECOTA tags him to be about 2 wins above replacement this season, then falling to about a win and a half per season over the next 4. David Bush turns 26 in November. A realistic appraisal of his future probably puts him as a fourth starter on an average staff or a good fifth starter on a good pitching staff.

I don't buy into the fact that Adam Peterson is worth Hillenbrand's VORP. Maybe if they didn't designate him 15 days into the season that argument might hold more water.

Unsigned 42nd round pick Chris Nicoll resurfaced in the third round going to KC in the draft this year.

That's it for the 2002 draft. Some here think that the 2002 draft is a success. I don't share that opinion. Adams has been a bit of a disappointment and Bush's sophomore season hasn't been good.

The 2003 first round brought the player that is easily the closest thing to a true impact position player that the system has produced in the Riccardi reign. Aaron Hill looks like he will be a good player. He'll probably be good for 4-5 wins over replacement a year until he hits free agency. He's hit in the majors at the age of 23. I'm sold.

Shaun Marcum is probably the consensus number 2 player from that Blue Jays draft. I've never seen him pitch personally, but the numbers in the low minors are very impressive. Baseball America left him out of their pre-season top 10 (but they also had League ranked ahead of Hill), but that might be a different case now with the success he's had in his short time in AA. Marcum might win 100 games in the majors or he might win zero. Your guess is as good as mine. If he turns into a 3rd starter then the 2003 draft will be much improved.

Josh Banks from the second round dominated in A ball, but hasn't impressed in AA. He's only 23, so there is time for him.

Some might feel that might someday be a place on the roster for Isenburg, Vermilyea, Chiaravalloti, etc. Maybe, but I doubt any of them will ever be much more then a replacement level player.

It's much to early to judge 2004, but Jackson has lived up to his billing (as has Purcey really). It might be the best draft of the three. It might also be the worst. It's a bit early to tell.

Chip Cannon was alluded to earlier in the thread. Mr. Cannon is in the Florida State League and was born on November 30, 1981. Let's put it this way, I think we can wait to measure his ring size.

You might ask yourself, who leads the 2005 Blue Jays in VORP?
Shea Hillenbrand (HS Draftee)

Actually let's break it down by the players with Positive VORPs.
F Cat (HS)
The Shea Hey Kid (HS)
Wells (HS)
Rios (No college)
Orlando Hudson (HS)
Hinske (College)
Koskie (HS)
McDonald (College)
Hill (College)
Adams (College)
Zaun (HS)
Johnson (HS)

That's 12 players. 4 were picked from College.

I don't see how a team can turn it's back on high school players. To build a system quickly from the ground it works well, but at some point you've got to move to a balanced approach. No one wants Reggie Abercrombie, but I'd rather have 4 Reggie Abercrombies and 1 Vernon Wells then 5 Gabe Grosses.

I know it's not a popular opinion around here but the Jays have a very average system. They have some pitching depth, but the dearth of position players is going to catch up with them. I hope the Romero turns out well, but no system could use the potential of Cameron Maybin more then the Jays could.

The idea that this pitching depth can be turned into good position players also gets to me sometimes. If you mean that a 26 year old who bombed out in the majors and AAA can fetch a player that the WORST TEAM in baseball was going to non-tender, then sure. Do keep in mind that Hillenbrand already has come back to Earth. 303/359/434 playing in a generally good park for hitters is hardly setting the world on fire. The idea they are going to flip him for something of value at the deadline also amuses me, but I guess we'll have to wait and see.

I'm sure I was all over the place, because I wrote that quickly. I guess in summary, I feel the opposite is true of someone like JP. If I'm the underdog and am short a hundred million dollars in payroll to the next guy, I can't play it safe. I need to play it high risk/high reward. You can't make up the huge salary differences that Boston and New York have by acquiring players that have a ceiling of 3 wins above replacement.

Joe - Thursday, June 09 2005 @ 10:12 PM EDT (#119284) #

I am too tired to respond to your entire message, but I'd just like to address one thing: you can't say "Here's where the Jays were drafted from, therefore highschool is more important than college, QED." (You didn't say that, but I sure read an implication into your words.) In order to figure that out you need a) a larger sample; b) to control for other factors, such as draft quality, current practices (if everyone drafts HS, then nobody will go to college), etc.

Jim - Thursday, June 09 2005 @ 10:26 PM EDT (#119285) #

If I infered that I didn't mean to. My point is just that even on THIS team there are very good players who were drafted from high school. In my mind it's a bad idea to ignore high school players in the draft. It's also a bad idea to sign a third baseman when the only players you have in the system that are ready to contribute are infielders, but that's an argument for another day.

Mick Doherty - Thursday, June 09 2005 @ 10:54 PM EDT (#119287) #

Hartman, it is an interesting article, but trade speculation articles always are interesting, if not always based anywhere near reality.

Nightengale lost me when he identified the Rangers as one of the teams who might be on the market for a corner infielder. If there is any team in the majors deeper at the corners than the Rangers with Teixeira and Blalock with the big club and Adrian Gonzalez, Jason Botts and Iain Kinsler a phone call away, I can't imagein who it'd be.

Gerry - Thursday, June 09 2005 @ 11:36 PM EDT (#119289) #

Re: the draft

The fact that Vernon Wells, Doc Halladay and whoever else were drafted by the Jays does not prove that picking high schoolers is a good idea. I believe that the research numbers show that, in general, either approach is OK. The pro high schoolers talk Wells, Halladay, Rios, etc., the pro-college point out Gillicks picks. THERE IS NO RIGHT ANSWER.

Second it is still too soon to evaluate JP's drafts. You cannot reach a decision on a player based on his first half-season in the league, some start slow and blossom (Delgado), others start fast and fade (Junior Felix). Don't blast me for my examples there are probably better ones out there.

What I like about JP is he has a plan and he sticks with it. He wants players who will make a quick impact, thats a college player. He wants to lower his risk, thats a college player. You know where you stand with JP. If you want him to start drafting high schoolers don't hold your breath, thats not the plan.

mendocino - Friday, June 10 2005 @ 12:21 AM EDT (#119290) #

Don't want to pour gas on the fire but..
Johnson(17r) played college ball at Cal St-Fullerton
Hillenbrand(10r), Hudson(43r) & Koskie(26r) played junior college before they were signed. Hudson and Koskie were draft & follows. Same draft philosophy the Jays use now.

The raw talent doesn't have to come from the draft. Jays gave 2nd round money to Leance Soto this spring, added Shane Benson over the winter, Chi-Hung Cheng and Edward Rodriguez last season.

But if you want a draft sleeper try high schooler Brett Wallace, a 3rd-to-5th round talent the Jays drafted in the 42nd round, but he has a free ride to Arizona State.

Jim - Friday, June 10 2005 @ 12:31 AM EDT (#119291) #

That's what I get for going with Baseball-reference.com. I thought Johnson played in college, but baseball-reference doesn't list it. Should have known it was fishy when it didn't have the 17th round listed. Same as the others.

I'm not saying that the Blue Jays shouldn't continue to select College players, or even a majority of college players. They shouldn't ignore them to the degree that they are. If you select Ricky Romero over Cameron Maybin because you think he's the better player, then great. If you refuse to scout Maybin because he's a high schooler that is quite stupid.

It's great that he has a plan and sticks to it. Is it quite as good if the plan has a major flaw?

Jonny German - Friday, June 10 2005 @ 08:25 AM EDT (#119293) #

They shouldn't ignore [high schoolers] to the degree that they are.

What degree is that, Jim? Do they have fewer scouts covering high school players than any other team? Is their total of 12 high schoolers this year the fewest of any team? Bottom 5? Bottom third?

Joe - Friday, June 10 2005 @ 08:35 AM EDT (#119294) #

That's just it, Jim. The plan does not have a fatal flaw. As Gerry says above, both drafting philosophies work equally.

Jim - Friday, June 10 2005 @ 09:09 AM EDT (#119297) #

That is hardly what has been shown. What the studies show is that high school players and college players are of about equal risk.

The study does not show that ignoring one group over the other 'works'.

When even Billy Beane starts to draft high school pitchers you would think some of those that drank the Kool-Aid might start to realize there might be a flaw... but I guess not.

I know I'm not going to change any minds here, but to me when you are in the Blue Jays' situation, High Risk/High Reward is a better option then Low Risk/Low Reward. Unless the goal is to be mediocre forever.

Jim - Friday, June 10 2005 @ 09:12 AM EDT (#119298) #

2005 - first prep player 11th round
2004 - first prep player 16th round
2003 - first prep player 19th round

I don't know how that relates to the rest of the league, and I don't have time to figure it out, but it speaks for itself.

JC - Friday, June 10 2005 @ 09:43 AM EDT (#119300) #

Far be it from me to force an analogy where it isn't welcome, but this "Ricciardi doesn't draft High Schoolers" thing reminds me of my roto draft a couple of months ago.

I came home proud of what I had accomplished, then my girlfriend looked over the roster and demanded to know why I didn't have any Blue Jays on the roster. "Its not that I didn't want them, its that everyone else was drafting them a lot higher than I was willing to".

That doesn't explain Romero over Maybin, but it may explain Rounds 2 through 11.

Gerry - Friday, June 10 2005 @ 09:45 AM EDT (#119301) #

Jim, I am guessing that probability and statistics is not your strong suit.

Fact: Both approaches are EQUALLY effective

Implication: Either approach is OK

Jim: Choosing one approach over the other is a mistake

The argument that college players will be mediocre and that only high school players can be stars is incorrect. Too many people look at the Blue Jays results from a narrow band of four years and assume that proves the rule, it does not.

Thats it for me, I am off to watch some some of those mediocre college players play some ball.

Jim - Friday, June 10 2005 @ 10:16 AM EDT (#119303) #

Either I can't write or you can't read. I'm guess it's I can't write.

It's not a FACT that both are EQUALLY effective. There is no study anywhere that proves anything approaching that.

Choosing either all high school or all college is a mistake. There is not a franchise that has been successful ignoring one of those two sets of players. One might argue that the teams that select more high school players have been more successful, for example Atlanta.

I won't waste any more of my time or your time, but some of you guys might try to be a little more open minded.

Wildrose - Friday, June 10 2005 @ 11:02 AM EDT (#119308) #

If your going to utilize a high risk/high reward type drafting approach you'd better give the practitioner of such a plan a long term contract.

Ricciardi's contract expires in 2007, he's no fool, he's not going to draft a Maybin, so that in five years from now somebody else gets the credit. If you believe in a long term development cycle you'd better have your G.M. on a long term contract as well.

MatO - Friday, June 10 2005 @ 11:09 AM EDT (#119309) #

BP has been running a comparison between highschool and college drafting for the first three rounds for the last number of weeks. This has been mentioned on this site previously. The conclusion from the 1990's was that college players outperformed highschoolers by 8% but it was not considered statistically significant a difference. If you argued that a player is more beneficial in his early years to you, before he gets traded or becomes a free agent, then that gap rises to 15% or was it 25%. There was supposed to be a hitter and pitcher comparison next which should be interesting.

Joe - Friday, June 10 2005 @ 11:26 AM EDT (#119316) #

Whoops. Jim, it seems your last comment (which had shown up 4 times) was accidentally completely deleted.

It was, I believe, "Rany's conclusion was that college pitchers were not significantly better than highschool players." (A couple of words might be wrong.)

Sorry for the deletion.

Now for the response:

You do realize you're not supporting your own conclusions, right? "Not significantly better" means "The same" to me.

MatO - Friday, June 10 2005 @ 11:30 AM EDT (#119317) #

Actually what Rany says is this:

"You're going to get about 50% more value from a college hitter than from any other draft pick. High-school pitchers are somewhat riskier than other picks in the first round. That's all you need to know."

Mike Green - Friday, June 10 2005 @ 11:41 AM EDT (#119320) #

Rany's point does not mean that it is equally wise to draft college and high-school pitchers. Consider Jon Garland, a 10th overall pick out of high school by the Cubs in 1997 and Jeff Weaver, a 14th overall pick out of college by the Tigers in 1998.

Garland struggled in A ball in 98 and was traded by the Cubs to the White Sox for Matt Karchner. He made the majors in 00, and was an average pitcher in his pre-arb years. He seems to have put it together in 2005 (he's still only 25 years old), and is a good bet to have a far superior career to Weaver, but his value to the Cubs was very modest.

Weaver zoomed through the Tigers minor league system, was average for 2 years, and then put together a good-half season in 2002. Weaver was then the key part of a 3 way-deal that netted the Tigers Jeremy Bonderman.

If one is comparing Weaver to Garland, it's a fairly good bet that Garland will have the better career. If one is comparing the actual value to the drafting organizations, it's pretty clear that Bonderman/Weaver will end up as much more valuable to the Tigers than Karchner was to the Cubs.

This is a hard thing to measure, but it is a fact that high schoolers require more development time. Roster pressures make it less likely that they will benefit the team that drafted them if there are bumps in the road, as there are often are for pitchers.

Jim - Friday, June 10 2005 @ 11:43 AM EDT (#119321) #

Good lord. I've said a number of times that the study shows that on a player by player basis there is no more risk in a high school player then a college player.

Gerry and some others make the leap that this means that a strategy of only selecting college players is validated by this study. That is quite a leap.

As I've said over and over, I'm not proposing selecting only high school players. My point is that it is foolish to ignore the potential of high school players.

The fact that college hitters have been more valuable is great. The problem with that is the Blue Jays have selected 3 college pitchers in the first round the last 2 years.

What is so distasteful to a balanced approach? If Riccardi is selecting Romero over Maybin because it's better for him in the short term then he should never have been hired as he needs to make the best decision for the team, not his own rear end.

Mike Green - Friday, June 10 2005 @ 11:58 AM EDT (#119322) #

There is nothing distasteful about a balanced approach. In the John Sickels Community Draft roundup, a number of people, including me, expressed the preference for Maybin over Zimmerman although we all agreed that it was a close call. I am quite sure that the organization would not have passed on Justin Upton, had he been available at #6, so the decision to choose Romero over Maybin was not simply a college vs. high school issue.

Earlier you and Dean expressed the view that JP's earlier drafts had not turned out well. I disagree with this strongly, and asked in particular about the 2002 and 2003 drafts, "Which teams had a better draft, taking into account draft order?". No one has given their opinions about this question.

My own perspective is that the 2002 and 2003 drafts were a success, and that deference is owed. Let's see how Maybin and Romero do in 2005 and 2006 before we even begin to make a judgment.

MatO - Friday, June 10 2005 @ 11:59 AM EDT (#119323) #

What is so distasteful in the approach being used?

Jim - Friday, June 10 2005 @ 12:07 PM EDT (#119325) #

To me it dogmatically ignores an entire population of players from which many of the games superstars in the past, present and future have come from.

If you want Mike Harkey over Ken Griffey Jr, more power to you, but I'd like to see consideration given to both classes.

MatO - Friday, June 10 2005 @ 12:14 PM EDT (#119326) #

A balanced approach is not dogma? It seems that BP (Rany) is saying that college hitters and any combination of the other subsets is the best approach over the long run for the first 3 rounds, which is precisely what the Jays are doing. Not even taking into account Mike Green's point.

I have to admit that these were very surprising results.

MatO - Friday, June 10 2005 @ 12:15 PM EDT (#119327) #

JP did say that if they had a shot at Upton they would have taken him.

Jim - Friday, June 10 2005 @ 12:17 PM EDT (#119328) #

That is hardly what the Blue Jays are doing. They didn't pick college hitters the last two years and they haven't selected a high school player before the 11th round in the past 3 drafts.

MatO - Friday, June 10 2005 @ 12:22 PM EDT (#119329) #

Huh?

Curtis Thigpen - 2nd round 2004
Adam Lind - 3rd round 2004
Brian Pettway - 3rd round 2005

Jim - Friday, June 10 2005 @ 12:27 PM EDT (#119331) #

Sorry, I meant they haven't picked college hitters in the FIRST round the last 2 seasons.

Wildrose - Friday, June 10 2005 @ 01:32 PM EDT (#119336) #

I'd like to see the Jay's have a more balanced drafting approach as well, but to pursue high school talent requires more financial resources than what Godfrey/Rogers have allocated to this management team.

Following high school talent requires a lot more scouts, (college talent is much more concentrated), as well signing high school players is generally more expensive in terms of signing bonuses. To a certain degree Ricciardi is playing the hand that was dealt to him.

Mick Doherty - Friday, June 10 2005 @ 01:50 PM EDT (#119340) #

Sorry, I meant they haven't picked college hitters in the FIRST round the last 2 seasons..

So ... the jist of the argument relies on N=2?

Dean - Friday, June 10 2005 @ 01:59 PM EDT (#119341) #

Mike, I said JP has scored on his first two picks each year, go back to my post, and that is a great, no doubt about it. Where I think he has performed poorly is identifying talent after that.

Who are the assets in the system other than the top picks each year? What happens if a first rounder does not pan out? It will happen. Ignoring an entire talent pool in my opinion is a mistake.

I agree with CraigB that 2004, even with the one sided approach, may have added to the prospect pool, somewhat. If Janssen has been able to increase his velocity then I think he is a viable prospect, If he is getting A-ball hitters out with 87-89 mph fastballs then not. Thigpen and Lind appear alright with a bat in their hand, somewhat wanting at the moment with a glove. Go Cannon. Am I biased toward 5, 6, & 7 tool prospects? Yes I am. They are the type of players that form the nucleus of winners.

Mike Green - Friday, June 10 2005 @ 02:25 PM EDT (#119343) #

And what I asked, Dean, is how many GMs did better than JP in Rounds 3-20 in 2002 or 2003, bearing in mind draft order? If you can name 5, I'll be surprised.

When BA says that Anaheim, for instance, has a more valuable farm system than Toronto, that does not mean that Bill Stoneman has done a better job of drafting than JP. Aggressive Latin American scouting and signing has played a significant role.

In 2002, Anaheim's first 5 picks in order were:

Joe Saunders (although Anaheim picked ahead of Toronto)
Kevin Jepsen
Kyle Pawelczyk
Jordan Renz
Javier Rodriquez.

Jim - Friday, June 10 2005 @ 02:25 PM EDT (#119344) #

N=2 is an argument only against this:

'A balanced approach is not dogma? It seems that BP (Rany) is saying that college hitters and any combination of the other subsets is the best approach over the long run for the first 3 rounds, which is precisely what the Jays are doing.'

That isn't precisely what the Jays are doing, because their last 3 first round picks (over 2 drafts) have been college pitchers.

uglyone - Friday, June 10 2005 @ 02:25 PM EDT (#119345) #

Isn't Romero only a year older than some of the high schoolers?

Craig B - Friday, June 10 2005 @ 02:37 PM EDT (#119351) #

Hey, we're all biased towards five-tool or seven-skill prospects. I'm right with you there.

The difficulty lies in locating that kind of talent in the shallow end of the draft pool -- past the first round. That's tough to do. The Jays under J.P. have elected not to play the game at all, spurning position players in favour of a surfeit of pitchers, no doubt with the intention of using some as bargaining chips to gain position players by trade. The hitters they have drafted past the earliest rounds (Adams, Hill, Thigpen are all tool-laden players) have tended to be guys who can actually hit, but might be defensively or positionally challenged. Chiaravalloti, Lind, Metropoulos, Roberts, Cannon, Patton are examples. Hattig and Griffin -- acquired in other ways -- fall into this category as well. Pettway, Patterson, Butler, and Bell continue that tradition in this draft... these guys are all capable hitters (Auburn will score runs), but may struggle to meet the major league standard at their position (with Bell a possible exception).

It's not a recipe for getting depth in the five-tool guys. Does it work for producing ballplayers? I think only time will tell in this regard, but given that we're already seeing important parts be obtained for the drafted pitchers. J.P. hasn't drafted one of these hitter types yet that has set the world on its ear, and that's probably the most telling card against his regime's draft strategy. In mitigation, he's come up with lots of competent-enough guys, and hitters haven't been picked high enough to get the kinds of guys who come without flaws.

Mike Green - Friday, June 10 2005 @ 02:47 PM EDT (#119353) #

Jim, if your point is that the last 3 1st round picks have been college left-handed pitchers who were not all, in your view, the best players available at the time, that is an entirely reasonable opinion. Time will tell whether Eddy Martinez-Esteve and Cameron Maybin, say, end up as better players than Zach Jackson and Ricky Romero. We might have to wait a long, long time though for the answer. In 1995, Seattle drafted Jose Cruz a number of picks before Roy Halladay and for 5 years, that looked like a very good decision, but we know better now. We'll talk about this again in 2010!

Jim - Friday, June 10 2005 @ 03:04 PM EDT (#119355) #

'Jim, if your point is that the last 3 1st round picks have been college left-handed pitchers who were not all, in your view, the best players available at the time, that is an entirely reasonable opinion.'

That's not exactly my point. If the Blue Jays truly feel like Romero is a better player then Maybin, then by all means draft him. I just don't like to see Maybin excluded simply because he's a high school player.

I guess I don't see how you turn extra arms into good position players. You can get players who are up against free agency or are overpaid (or maybe are going to be non-tendered like Hillenbrand), but you can't turn Z. Jackson into Carlos Quinton (just an example, not making a value judgement about either player).

I'm sure i've been all over the place in this thread, but to try and spit out what I'm getting at is that when you are short a hundred million in payroll you can't compete by being conservative. This is a situation that calls for high reward players, even if they come with high risks.

Dean - Friday, June 10 2005 @ 03:57 PM EDT (#119357) #

Mike, I don't have time to see if anyone scored better than 0 with their 2002 draft - 3 to 50, but I did check to see what year Scott Olsen from the Marlins was drafted - 2002, along with two other guys in their top 10 prospects - as per BA.

The fact that the Angels secure talent outside of the draft in an area JP deems too risky - it is- is another reason why the draft has to be more than two rounds for the Jays.

You keep on throwing out challenges to me, but you have yet to refute my claim that 3 to 50 has been devoid of real talent. I will give JP Adam Pederson but I agree with Jim that he was not the reason the D-backs traded for him and his subsequent release is proof of that. Shea was traded because of money and the Jays were on the other side of the equation this time. The trade could have easily have involved Mike Smith etc.

There is a great Ask BA today, available to non subscibers that talks about the A's draft and touches on some of the things being hashed on this thread.

Stellers Jay - Friday, June 10 2005 @ 03:57 PM EDT (#119358) #

Given the price of "league average" pitching this recent off season, I'll gladly take a surplus in pitching talent over hitting any day.

Eric Milton with a record of 3-7 and era of 7.46 is in the first year of a 3 year 25.5 million dollar deal.

Jaret Wright with a record of 2-2 and era of 9.15 is in the first year of a 3 year deal and is making just under 6 million dollars. He's pitched in 4 games and is currently on the DL with a shoulder injury and there is no timetable for his return.

Russ Ortiz with a record of 4-5 and an era of 5.62 is the first year of a 4 year deal and is making 7.4 million this year.

The bluejays system is currently loaded with pitching talent from single A to AAA. The challenge for the management team is to seperate who can help a big league team in the near future to those who can't. And then take the next step to decide who to keep and who to trade to fill the hitting needs of the club.

MatO - Friday, June 10 2005 @ 04:03 PM EDT (#119359) #

Jim. It is precisely that approach. I mean you still need to have some balance between hitters and pitchers. According to this study, in the first 3 rounds, the odds are in your favour if you draft college hitters/college pitchers or college hitters/highschool hitters or college hitters/highschool pitchers or college hitters/any combo of the above. I wouldn't advocate all hitters for obvious reasons.

The wildcard is how good is your scouting?

Jim - Friday, June 10 2005 @ 04:05 PM EDT (#119360) #

The Braves in 2002 selected 2 high school players in the first 3 rounds who are already in the major leagues. They also included 2nd round pick Dan Meyer in the Hudson trade.

MatO - Friday, June 10 2005 @ 04:08 PM EDT (#119361) #

Dean. Is this the same BA that declared the Blue Jay 2002 draft the best.

Mike Green - Friday, June 10 2005 @ 04:21 PM EDT (#119362) #

Dean, Here are the Marlins' 2002 drafts. Hermida and Olsen appear to me to be the only names, but maybe I'm missing something. It's not obvious to me that they are better than Adams and Bush, but time will tell that.

The Braves did do well in 2002, but they had 4 choices in the first 2 rounds. James Jurries drafted in the sixth round (out of Tulane) might end up being good.

2003 was a better draft year than 2002. The Jays got Marcum in the 3rd round. Here are all the picks in that round. There are quite a few nice players, but Marcum might very well be the best of the lot. Sickels had him as B- prospect before this season, and seeing as he has since passed the double A test with flying colours, I imagine that he'd be a B or B+ now.

Dean - Friday, June 10 2005 @ 04:23 PM EDT (#119363) #

Mat O, yep that one. Sh*t happens:) Its also the same one that nailed the 1st 18 picks this year.

MatO - Friday, June 10 2005 @ 04:23 PM EDT (#119364) #

Jim. What 3 Atlanta Braves? Francoeur is in AA. Meyer was traded. The guys in rounds 2 and 3 aren't in the majors as far as I can tell.

MatO - Friday, June 10 2005 @ 04:26 PM EDT (#119365) #

Dean. Do you think you can get BA to pick the numbers on the next 6-49 draw. Split it with you :-)

Dean - Friday, June 10 2005 @ 04:39 PM EDT (#119366) #

Mat O, I was thinking along the same line earlier in this thread when some one posted that JP had said he would take Upton if available. That would be like us saying we would buy some new wheels if we did win.

Mike, quit looking and talking about the first couple of picks, I keep saying 3 - 50. Jp does REALLY WELL with those first couple. Where is the talent after that. Go check out BA's top 10, I even checked on St.Louis and they have guys listed there drafted after #2. All of the Jays listed who were drafted were from the first couple of rounds.

MatO - Friday, June 10 2005 @ 04:47 PM EDT (#119367) #

BA also rated the Cardinals as having the worst minor league system. I think Dizzy Dean even made the top ten.

MatO - Friday, June 10 2005 @ 05:00 PM EDT (#119370) #

OK found Brian McCann was just promoted to the majors. I hate how all the stats are erased for a player once he's promoted now. There are absolutely no stats at the usual sites for McCann since he hasn't yet played in the majors and they deleted his AAA (I assume) stats.

Anyways, nice discussion but I gotta go.

Mike Green - Friday, June 10 2005 @ 05:04 PM EDT (#119371) #

OK. I think we've about exhausted this topic. Hardly any team did well in 2002 during rounds 3-50 because it was a weak draft. In 2003, JP drafted Marcum, Isenberg, Vermilyea and Roberts in these rounds, and I doubt that any other team did better, but time will tell.

Cubs 2, Jays 0: The Other Halladay | 75 comments | Create New Account

The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.