Kevin Goldstein chat

by Adam J. Morris on Jun 6, 2006 9:31 PM CDT in News

BP prospect guru Kevin Goldstein has a chat session up from this evening, which includes this exchange on the Ranger draft:

Adam J. Morris (Houston, Texas): What's your take on the Rangers' draft? After the first couple of picks, it looks like a high-risk, high-reward group of guys, with several players -- Marcus Lemon and Christopher Davis -- who have major signability issues.

Kevin Goldstein: Adam,

That's a pretty good take, but I gotta think the Rangers would not have taken those two in the 4th and 5th rounds if they didn't think they could sign them. The bad news is that Lemon might be the first pick I like here. Kiker seemed too high for me at No. 12 in the first round, and i have questions about 3rd-rounder Chad Tracy's ability to catch long term.

Tweet Comment 20 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Today's draft

I thought Kiker was a bit of an overdraft as well, though I can see why the Rangers liked him.

The Tracy and Lemon picks appear to be good value for where BA had each of them ranked.

Interesting note: Kevin Angelle, the Rangers' 13th-round pick, was ranked at 136 in BA's Top 200, right behind Steven Marquardt, who Texas signed earlier this week.

Scary note: Besides the first three picks, only Jake Brigham (6th round) and Angelle were on BA's Top 200- and Angelle was rated higher than Brigham. Weird that our 13th round pick was thought of as a better prospect (by BA, at least) than eight of the 11 players Texas selected ahead of him. Not sure if that's a good thing.

by RCCook on Jun 6, 2006 10:12 PM CDT reply actions

Re: Scary note

Why is this scary?

If everyone drafts according to BA, then most teams will have only 7 in the "top 200" while some will only have 6.

Considering that the Rangers were missing a 2nd-rounder, and not only is it not scary, but expected that the Rangers wouldn't likely have more than 5-6 in BA's top 200.

Besides, BA isn't the be-all, end-all of prospect coverage. Especially in draft situations, where it's likely a crapshoot, which players develop and which don't.

Req

by Requiem on Jun 6, 2006 10:29 PM CDT up reply actions

Agreed.

BA is well respected, but, there is a reason that they do not work in the front office or in the scouting department of any of the 30 MLB teams...

by Longhorn on Jun 6, 2006 10:38 PM CDT up reply actions

re:

But, according to them, they get most of their information from people who do work in the front office and scouting department of MLB teams. They've never claimed to be scouts. They're reporters.

That's why the Rangers having so few highly regarded draft picks might be a concern. The top 200 list isn't simply BA's own take; it's based on what they hear from the "professionals". So, if the Rangers are operating independently of the consensus, they're either smarter than most...or dumber than most.

by Alan Smithee on Jun 6, 2006 11:13 PM CDT up reply actions

And

if you line up all of the times where the Rangers picked a guy at a value according to the top 100/200, and all of the times that they reached, the value picks look WAY better than the reaches. Very rarely have they picked a guy up high who was off the 200 and had him turn into a prospect.

Whittleman looked last year like they might have identified a guy who was underrated, but he is having just a terrible first full season.

Some teams have a bit of a habit of picking guys down on the list and having them pan out (Twins come to mind with guys like Garza and Swarzak), but the Rangers are not one of those teams.

by Brett Perryman on Jun 7, 2006 12:52 AM CDT up reply actions

Hello KC Herren...

"I could be wrong-but I'm not." Dan Jenkins

by Brian Thomas on Jun 7, 2006 1:19 AM CDT up reply actions

I don't disagree....

that the Rangers likely aren't one of those teams who can pick out "diamonds in the rough."

However, it's a question really of

Is their scouting poor?
Are they poor at making choices?

or
3) Do they suck at developing these types of players?

Req

by Requiem on Jun 7, 2006 3:48 AM CDT up reply actions

I disagree

Botts and Kinsler and Loe all seem to be diamonds born out of the rough.

And any statements like this are going to end up being pretty broad generilizations anyway.

I loathe you, Buckles.

by thedirkatron on Jun 7, 2006 4:43 AM CDT up reply actions

Botts, Kinsler, Loe

were all very low picks. I know you're replying to Req, but just so we're clear, my original point wasn't about them finding sleepers late in the draft, it was on their success in picking them (or at least sleepers with respect to the level of the pick) high in the draft, like in the first 4-5 rounds.

by Brett Perryman on Jun 7, 2006 2:09 PM CDT up reply actions

Personal opinion

I think it's mostly poor evaluation. I'm not saying that they are or have been a poor talent evaluating organization, but I think that the trend of missing on early overdrafts is primarily because of evaluation/ranking mistakes. If you go down the list of guys that we're talking about, I don't think that you see a bunch of guys whose talent wasn't properly developed. You see a bunch of guys whose talent was incorrectly projected.

by Brett Perryman on Jun 7, 2006 2:13 PM CDT up reply actions

Scary

I just think it's a bit odd that the Rangers' 13th-round pick was rated higher by BA (a fairly well-regarded source on prospects) than their 5th-12th rounders.

That says to me that:

A. The Rangers may have overdrafted some of the 5th-12th round picks

B. Angelle is a hell of a steal

C. Both A & B, which I think is the most likely scenario.

And while none of BA's writers work in MLB front offices, much of their work (particularly the yearly team-by-team prospect lists) is based on information they get from scouts and other MLB front office personnel.

True, they are just one source, and each team no doubt sees every potential draftee differently. I did like the Tracy, Lemon, Brigham, Gentry, and Angelle picks- the rest I either don't know enough about or was a bit "meh" on, though I'm warming up a little to Kiker.

by RCCook on Jun 6, 2006 11:15 PM CDT up reply actions

It could also mean

that Angelle is a hard sign.

by Brett Perryman on Jun 7, 2006 12:49 AM CDT up reply actions

I think that....

zwyica's explanation is probably the most likely one.

Also, nobody's explained to me why having 5 of the top 200 when there are 29 other organizations is "scary."

Especially, after not having a 2nd round pick and with the supplemental picks.

Req

by Requiem on Jun 7, 2006 3:46 AM CDT up reply actions

Not sure about that

From BA's profile:

"Angelle originally signed with Texas A&M. But he's eager to enter pro ball, and he would likely attend San Jacinto (Texas) Junior College if he doesn't sign."

by RCCook on Jun 7, 2006 7:07 AM CDT up reply actions

Still don't see how it is an 'overdraft'

when the Brewers would take him at 16 and he wouldn't pass by the Braves at 24...We can't trade down spots

by Longhorn on Jun 7, 2006 12:31 PM CDT up reply actions

Kikee

If you watch Kiker's scouting video on MLB.com, it's clear the kid has command of the strike zone and his stuff really moves at 90 plus mph from a lefty. I am sure there are aspects of his game which need to improve, but don't think you could want any more than that from an 18-year-old kid.

by doolindalton on Jun 7, 2006 9:09 AM CDT reply actions