Main question

by jrams33 on Oct 28, 2008 4:30 PM CDT Comment 14 comments

Actually two questions: after seeing him placed at the top of our prospect list by the BTiA guys, I got to thinking about the 2006 draft and was puzzled about why he fell to us at 24. It was a pretty deep draft, but after hearing the comments from guys like MJH and Adair's praise recently, I believe we pulled off quite a coup to get this guy at #24. He was the 13th pitcher taken and the 7th RHP when he came off the board to us. He signed quickly so signability was one of the draws to him, and I don't remember anything negative coming out about him physically. So now the questions

Why did he drop to 24?

If we were to redraft the first round of 2006 today, where do you think he would go? Ahead of Alderson and Savery surely?

I can hardly wait to see him in Frisco next year and eagerly await the reports coming from our various and asundry perspectives hopelessly addicted to covering the entire Rangers organization.

0 recs | Comment 14 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

2007 draft

Greatest Inventions Ever? 1. TiVO, 2. Boobs, 3. Baseball

by willamos2 on Oct 28, 2008 4:41 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Not sure...

Could it be that he has developed more quickly than some thought after concentrating only on pitching?

by Topgun22 on Oct 28, 2008 4:49 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Main

Main was drafted as a RHP/OF. He was seen as a good prospect at either position.

I think there are a couple of answers to your question:

First, I don’t think being drafted 24th is an indication that he isn’t as talented as the other players in the first round, nor do I think that teams viewed Main as less talented. I’d bet that if you look at all 1st rounders who have been drafted in recent years, there isn’t a very strong correlation between position and performance. Sure, the players drafted in the top 10 might be a little better than those drafted 20-30, but I don’t think that you can ever say that a player drafted 14th is a good bet to be any better than a player drafted 21st, several years down the line. Drafts are imperfect and rely on the ability to project players.

Speaking of projecting young players, Main was drafted directly out of high school. I think if you have two players that you view as equally talented and one is in college and the other in high school, you will generally take the more advanced player. High school players are a little harder to project since they are younger.

Either way, the pick has worked out thus far and I’m really excited to see what Main can do this coming season.

by Stephen Rushin on Oct 28, 2008 5:40 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Here's this

http://www.lonestarball.com/2008/10/22/640482/2008-originzational-review#9517583

Hope that link works…

Go Strangers.

by hightowersmith on Oct 28, 2008 5:58 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Sometimes really good high school righties fall to the 24th pick.

It happens.

The fact is that it’s just plain hard to take 18 year old kids and project what they’ll do as pros. He fell to 24th because the other teams liked other guys better. Main was universally well regarded, it just so happened that no one pulled the trigger on him in the first 23 picks and we were lucky enough to get the chance to snatch him up in that spot. Yay us.

The 40 Trumps All!!!

by thedirkatron on Oct 28, 2008 8:59 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

I don't think Billingsley was

drafted out of HS. But, if you want to use him as a comp for Main, I won’t object.

Nolan Ryan should be the Rangers president, GM, manager and pitching coach.

by RangerMad on Oct 28, 2008 9:14 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Philip Hughes was drafted fairly low (23rd) in a draft that was similar to Main's draft in that

there were a lot of high end pitchers in the draft, especially of the college variety.

Go Rangers!

by rooster on Oct 28, 2008 9:35 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

On thing about Billingsley, Cain and Hughes is that a lot of teams were shying away from HS arms during those three drafts (including the Rangers, so though they did take Danks and Hurley). Hughes, for example, was much more highly rated by BA than where he went (as was Hurley).

by Brett Perryman on Oct 29, 2008 5:55 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

A few clues here in the BA quote

by shroomer on Oct 28, 2008 9:22 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

newberg and callis chat

regarding L/R combos

But yeah, you could say Texas could have
four combos if we went 20 deep.

Check your mail.

by tyd3311 on Oct 28, 2008 11:15 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Main

I wouldn’t call 24 that low. I would think it would be a combination of things that led him to be still available at this point. Injury history, teams not knowing whether he was a CF or pitcher, lacking ideal size as a pitcher, really only had the velo in HS. This was kind of a scatter brained post but you get the idea. No HS pitcher is really regarded as a sure thing, even more so when they didn’t even pitch full time.

This is the Texas Rangers, professional destroyers of hope, we're talking about. - BAC

by nikpin on Oct 29, 2008 12:16 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

i wouldn't get my hopes too high with young kids coming up

Thomas Diamond was heralded as a saviour when he was in the lower minor leagues but he hasn’t thrown a pitch for the Rangers; Hurley hasn’t exploded on to the scene; Volqey took a demotion to A ball to get straightend out. So the point is we should be cautiously optimistic and not too much pressure on Main.

by Aneel on Oct 30, 2008 1:51 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

True with each prospect, but

the reason for optimism is that the sheer number of high quality arms means a greater chance that at least some of them pan out and pitching at the ML level improves over the next few years.

G G G E-flat_______ F F F D__________....

by t ball on Oct 30, 2008 9:24 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs