Minorleagueball Mock Draft

by naropean on May 12, 2008 9:37 AM CDT Comment 48 comments

Hey everyone,

So John Sickels, as many of you know, puts together a 5-round mock draft on his blog, minorleagueball.com. The way it works is he lets people volunteer to take charge of a team's draft as a Scouting Director. Here's all the info: http://www.minorleagueball.com/2008/5/10/507154/2008-minor-league-baseball

So the reason I bring this up to LSB is that last year the Rangers' draft was handled by an A's fan, which was kind of lame. Mostly, though, I figure that with the amount of attention our minor league system has gotten this season, and with the excitement I read in the minors diaries on LSB every night, this could be a cool ongoing discussion point as we move toward the actual draft next month.

I don't think I'm knowledgable enough about prospects to take this on myself, but if anyone is interested, the sign-up for scouting directors will be going on sometime later today on the Sickels blog.

Just thought I'd throw it out there.

EDIT: You may now sign up to be the Rangers scouting director. Follow the link: http://www.minorleagueball.com/2008/5/12/508043/2008-mock-draft-scouting-d#comments

0 recs | Comment 48 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

MLB needs

to start letting teams trade draft picks…

Say your sorry to Ron Washington

by miles on May 12, 2008 9:40 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

MLB needs

to cut the draft down to 20 rounds.

"Before I leave, I once again condemn the despicable buffoonery of D.J. Cahill." - Huck

by DJCahill on May 12, 2008 10:02 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

+1

Or less even

by badradiorules on May 12, 2008 10:10 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah, 20 would be a good start tho

Back in the bad old days, the NBA had like a 19 round draft, and the NFL had like 17 rounds.

"Before I leave, I once again condemn the despicable buffoonery of D.J. Cahill." - Huck

by DJCahill on May 12, 2008 10:27 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yes

And MLB had the very confusing policy of draft as long as you want. The Yankees would routinely draft 60-70 or more guys. Stupid. Now with the end of the D&F era, there is absolutely no reason to go beyond 20 rounds. I think 15 would be good. That’s all that you can reasonably expect to be big leaguers. Fill the rest of your SS rosters with senior sign guys. That way these kids that are high schoolers or freshmen that sign for nothing out of the 30th round and get released in a year will stay in school and have a chance to improve and stick around.

by badradiorules on May 12, 2008 12:12 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yep

now that there are no more draft and follow opportunities, these large # of rounds do seem excessive.

by FirebatM3 on May 12, 2008 12:17 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Okay

Why is a high schooler drafted in the 30th round more likely to improve by going to college?

by Adam J. Morris on May 12, 2008 12:18 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Well at least

they’d be in school hopefully earning credits towards a degree that they could use when they flame out after being a 20th round college draftee instead of a 30th round high school draftee.

by Dirk Diggler on May 12, 2008 12:27 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

if nothing else

A HS pitcher taken in the 30th round would be smart to go to college and try to improve his draft position. In the college environment he’ll have less competition for playing time AND have a shot at a degree. HS pitchers taken late have too much to gain at college to pass up a scholarship.

But you’re right. In terms of improvement, the coaching in rookie ball is probably just as good or better than college coaching.

by naropean on May 12, 2008 12:29 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Wait

You don’t think a player could get better, even from 30th round talent, by playing in college?

Go Strangers.

by hightowersmith on May 12, 2008 12:36 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

College is a filter on ballplayers

It is hard to argue that college “improves” players any more than years in the minors do. But it does give you a better idea which ones may eventually become major leaguers.

by JBImaknee on May 12, 2008 12:42 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

That's not what I'm saying

I’m asking why you think he’d improve more going to college instead of playing pro ball.

by Adam J. Morris on May 12, 2008 12:54 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

See what you're saying.

My one thought though is in college the money issue is neutral, especially if the player’s on scholarship.

Life in the Minors for a 30th-round pick sounds like anonymity, and hardscrabble living.

As long as the player’s serious about a baseball career, it might be easier to go to college and learn the game there a couple years.

Go Strangers.

by hightowersmith on May 12, 2008 2:22 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think he's asking

Why would they get better by playing in college, and not get better by playing in the minors?

"If we where [sic] gonna trade them Salty, I would want a helluva lot more than just Joba though." -lonestarJon

by thedirkatron on May 12, 2008 12:54 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think the original point would be...

If a later round guy isn’t going to make it in the majors anyways, regardless of the minors or college, going to college, getting a scholarship, getting a degree that can help them later in life is better than being a washout of the minor league system right out of high school when, they might try to catch on at various international leagues and end up 23, out of baseball with little money and no degree.

by venturafearsnolan on May 12, 2008 3:22 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I would assume

some might get improved coaching from high school to college.

I’m sure that some of those who would have been 30th rounders, could still catch on with a franchise as an undrafted free agent.

"Before I leave, I once again condemn the despicable buffoonery of D.J. Cahill." - Huck

by DJCahill on May 12, 2008 12:39 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Any kid

who is drafted in the 30th round who gets a scholarship to a big college program is already going to go to the college program.

Lets see – $2500 signing bonus or $50k scholarship? Not a hard decision.

I’d guess most high school kids taken in the 30th round are choosing between a partial scholarship (which I don’t understand the rules, but college teams have) or the minors. Which if you are a poor kid with not great grades, the $2500 pro bonus will go a lot further than a 30% off discount to go to a university.

by JBImaknee on May 12, 2008 12:40 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Well

BGL was on here last year and said that teams pay your college tuition if they draft you out of high school and you wash out and end up wanting to go back to college, so that’s a consideration. (Don’t know if that’s true or not, but he’s the union rep, so he’d know, wouldn’t he?)

And a 30th round draft pick is very likely to be good enough to get a full scholarship somewhere.

If you assume half the guys drafted are either college, junior college or other, a high school kid picked in the 30th round is presumably one of the top 450 kids in the nation, give or take. If he has any academic ability at all and desires to go to college, I’d have to imagine a kid like that is gonna get a full ride.

Maybe I’m wrong though.

"If we where [sic] gonna trade them Salty, I would want a helluva lot more than just Joba though." -lonestarJon

by thedirkatron on May 12, 2008 1:00 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

If I'm not mistaken...

...there are very few full scholarships handed out to baseball players.

Division I teams only have 12 or 13 scholarships, I think, so most of them parcel them out piecemeal.

by Adam J. Morris on May 12, 2008 1:08 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Here you go

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/columns/story?columnist=schlabach_mark&id=2895944

Each team is only allowed to give away 11.7 scholarships, and the minimum scholarship size is 1/3 tuition.

This isn’t to say there aren’t “off the books” ways to get guys financial aid, etc. But athletic scholarships are very limited in baseball.

Anyone who would get a full scholarship in baseball would be a top round pick. Those are the guys like Jordan Danks and Matt Harvey who tell teams not to draft them because they are going to college. I’m not even sure Danks is getting a full ride at UT.

by JBImaknee on May 12, 2008 1:16 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

he's not

asked the same question when he signed and my fiance, who teaches at RR HS, asked the coach and he said no.

Augie was on KVET after they got back from the Mizzou series and talked about how tough it is to have a full (not deep) pitching staff given the scholarship limitations and the fact many of the parents of drafted HSer’s try to get the club to commit to paying more tuition than what the NCAA is allowing the school to do making college easier to postpone. I think there are 2 players with full scholarships on UT’s team and the rest of course are partials and walk-ons.

by corbsclinton on May 12, 2008 1:42 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Correct

I doubt that there are more than 5 full rides in all of DI baseball. There are plenty of full rides in Junior College and NAIA, which is why you will see the occasional top 2 round pick out of those type schools.

by badradiorules on May 12, 2008 2:54 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

in high school

my friend was drafted in the 13th round by the Braves and his best scholarship offer was a 2/3rds to TCU. A&M offered 1/2 ride.

The Braves offered him free college and a $30,000 signing bonus. This was in 1997.

W: "Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."

by hubcityraider on May 13, 2008 3:44 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

College vs. Pro ball

It’s not really an argument of which is the better vehicle in which to improve as a player. There are a few issues for these 30+ round high school draft picks.

1) The biggest problem is that that the organization has very little money invested in you, so you are very expendable if you don’t figure things out very quickly.

2) They’ll need to figure it out, because if they are drafted in that area, they are flawed in some way.

3) They are typically not ready emotionally at their age to make the adjustments that they need to make quickly enough to stick around.

Going to a DI school allows you three or four years to adjust to the level of competition and gives you more time for the learning curve. If, at the end of that time, he is still just organizational filler, he’ll still get the opportunity to do that. However, if he signs out of high school out of the late rounds, he’ll be looked at as organizational filler right from the start and will have to do quite a bit to not get released in the first couple of years. At that point, the option of going to college to play and increase his value is off the table.

by badradiorules on May 12, 2008 2:44 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

But this is a strategic decision for the families

I don’t see why MLB needs to enforce it one way or another. Whether going to college or the pros is the best option depends on the family and the situation (i.e., would he go to college anyway?) And if a kid gets picked in the 34th round, then he can just ignore it and go to college anyway – the fact he was drafted does not tarnish him in any way, and probably will get him a few hot dates while in school.

Also, one can make the flip side argument about when the best time to go pro is. A 30th round kid coming out of high school is 18 years old and can afford to take a year or two off for a wild shot at the pros. Whereas a 30th round kid coming out of college is probably saddled with college loans, has a degree and job options in some other field – generally not in a position to take a big career risk by going to the pros.

As you point out, in both cases the guy is probably going to be out of baseball in 2-3 years. But in the first case, the kid is 20 or 21and can go to school or whatever without baseball as a distraction, while in the second case the guy is 24 and has missed out on many professional opportunities available right out of college

by JBImaknee on May 12, 2008 3:29 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

MLB obligations

I’m not saying that MLB should step in to resolve this issue. I’m just saying that a byproduct of cutting these rounds down would be that they take that decision out of some of these families hands. They should cut the rounds down because the last half of the draft is essentially useless.
In the rare case that a borderline guy isn’t going to go to college and there are scouts that are interested in him, he’ll still have the opportunity to be an UFA with a new system.
I’m not sure there’s a difference of when you take a "wild shot" at pro baseball. I’m not sure that having a degree in your back pocket while you go try to make it in baseball is such a bad thing. More often than not, you aren’t going to be in that same position if you go to a nice DI school and become their Friday night starter and have success or if you hit in the middle of the lineup. Even though the scholarships aren’t huge in baseball, you can find a place where the financial burden isn’t cumbersome, especially for a guy at that level.
It is my observation that often kids do better in school when affiliated with an athletic team. Every college baseball team that I have been around has carried a team GPA much greater than that of the general population. For the boarder-line student, the structure helps them manage their time properly and they are usually mandated to attend study halls. Also, knowing that they have to be eligible to play keeps them in line for the most part. However, this is a different discussion altogether.

by badradiorules on May 12, 2008 6:10 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Big difference

The NBA and NFL don’t have to fill 120 minor league roster spots to go with the 25 man roster. The NBA has FIFTEEN total spots. The NFL has like 61 including the practice squad. Even taking training camps, you’re talking about 80 versus twice that in baseball.

Maybe you could eliminate a level or two of the minors, but that’s a whole different argument. Unless you’re going to overhaul the whole sport, I don’t see why you need to cut that many draft rounds just so that players are FAs and not draft picks. All that accomplishes is variations in signing bonuses.

by Brett Perryman on May 12, 2008 2:53 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Using your numbers

The NBA drafts 13% of their slots, the NFL drafts 11.5% of their slots, and MLB drafts 34.5% of their slots every year. I’m suggesting they draft 13.8% of their 145 slots.

I just think rounds 20-50 are completely unnecessary, and since players that signed can be locked up for 9-10 years with a club, I think it would be better for the players to find clubs where they are more likely to get playing time.

Honestly, there were similar arguments to the NBA and NFL cutting their numbers drafted, and it hasn’t hurt them one iota.

"Before I leave, I once again condemn the despicable buffoonery of D.J. Cahill." - Huck

by DJCahill on May 12, 2008 3:05 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Other than being unnecessary

what is your rationale for cutting the draft size? Just the fact that players can’t choose who to go to?

Zywica’s point is that unlike the NBA or NFL, the vast majority of guys who are drafted, play for a couple of minor league teams, and are out of baseball in 2-3 years. So they have to fill many of those slots every year.

The way I see it overdrafting in this way (along with having more minor league teams) allows teams to take risks on guys with a 1% chance of making it to the pros. By spreading these picks across all 30 teams, MLB maximizes the number of future players that they put into the system while dispersing the cost and risk.

Also, your argument – that they should just stop at 20 rounds and let everyone else be a free agent, will result in teams like the Yankees and BoSox just out-bonusing any undrafted guys, let them develop for a year and just dump the ones who don’t go from a 1% to 5% chance to see the majors. That would be bad for the game and not any better of for those guys who may have made it with a different organization but went for the fast cash.

by JBImaknee on May 12, 2008 3:18 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Exactly

Zywica’s point is that unlike the NBA or NFL, the vast majority of guys who are drafted, play for a couple of minor league teams, and are out of baseball in 2-3 years. So they have to fill many of those slots every year.

by Brett Perryman on May 12, 2008 3:19 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Except those guys

who are out of baseball after 2-3 years are pretty much your 21-50 draft picks.

As far as out bonusing, if someone really wants to moneywhip a guy who is undrafted after 20 rounds, more power to them. Seems like an insanely stupid idea to me.

The biggest benefit for baseball is less time spent on prospects who are only there to fill your minor leagues out. You can just sign a guy who is an undrafted FA, or from a non affiliated minor league if you need the warm body.

"Before I leave, I once again condemn the despicable buffoonery of D.J. Cahill." - Huck

by DJCahill on May 12, 2008 3:25 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Why would it change

the time spent on prospects who are only there to fill rosters? And how many of those do you think there are? I think that it’s fewer than I take it that you do. Guys go from not on prospect lists to the very top of them every year. Take Nick Blackburn.

Also, something that we haven’t mentioned in terms of the numbers is all of the injured players, especially pitchers. A LOT of prospect pitchers go on DLs every year, many obviously need to be replaced for long stretches. Plus, if you didn’t have numbers, what would you do if you had an injury situation like the Rangers have this year? They have lost everyone but Padilla from their preseason rotation, plus Mendoza, and Rheinecker and Guardado (for a stretch) from the left side in the pen. If they hadn’t worried about “minor league filler” where would they be right now? And where would they be if a few more guys get hurt, as wouldn’t be surprising? They would have guys who have no business in pro baseball or A-ball prospects in their rotation.

by Brett Perryman on May 12, 2008 3:39 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

And to illustrate the pitching prospect injury part

I was just looking at my minor league excel. In addition to various other arms, there is a rotation full of their better starter prospects, all of whom would be in full season rotations, on the shelf, in Diamond, Main, Poveda, Jones and Brigham. You only have 20 full season rotation spots to begin with. Considering the upper level guys who are on the major league staff because of injuries, that’s 8-9 of those spots emptied. If you didn’t take "filler" (or filler for filler) spots seriously, how many SP prospects would that even leave pitching in the whole system? Three?

by Brett Perryman on May 12, 2008 4:40 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

You would still fill up with filler,

they would just be undrafted FAs and the like.

Much like you see undrafted FAs making the NFL and NBA occasionally, you would occasionally see undrafted FAs make the majors.

Its not like you would run short of players. There would still be undrafted FAs, players from unaffiliated minors, etc.

I heard the same defense of the NFL and NBA drafts when they cut their number of rounds down. It really ended up being a trivially minor change for both sports.

"Before I leave, I once again condemn the despicable buffoonery of D.J. Cahill." - Huck

by DJCahill on May 12, 2008 4:45 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

The changes in the NBA and NFL drafts

I’m basically making the same argument that you are, that it wouldn’t really change anything. The only benefit/detriment of reducing the number of draft rounds is that more players would have more control over which organization they join out of HS/college. That is the only thing that reducing the number of draft rounds in the other sports did, and it’s the only thing that it would do in baseball.

There would be no less money spent, no less attention given to these players from a scouting perspective. Teams still would need to fill all of those holes.

by Brett Perryman on May 12, 2008 4:49 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Also

Why do you think that reducing the NFL draft from 12 to 7 rounds has been a good thing? Teams obviously sign more than five FAs anyway to fill their camp rosters, and bonus money is controlled because of the salary cap. Why is the sport better off?

by Brett Perryman on May 12, 2008 4:51 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

It allowed them

to market the draft, and start marketing the players drafted, and increased interest in the draft and in the sport.

How is the sport worse off?

"Before I leave, I once again condemn the despicable buffoonery of D.J. Cahill." - Huck

by DJCahill on May 12, 2008 4:58 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

shortening the baseball draft

won’t make it more marketable.

The only thing that would make the baseball draft marketable is if the players would impact the big league teams in 1-2 years, like with the NBA or NFL. That won’t happen no matter how you change the draft.

by JBImaknee on May 12, 2008 5:01 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

It didn't make the draft particularly more marketable

The first day of the draft is where all of the ratings and interest lie, and that has been altered independent of the overall length of the draft. They largely ignore the actual ongoing draft on the broadcast as it reaches the late rounds on Sunday anyway.

My argument isn’t that it would make the sport worse. It’s that it’s not a question of better/worse, but who you want to have more leverage, the teams or the affected players. The desire to shorten the draft strikes me like me calling for NASCAR and the WNBA to fold because I’m just not interested in them.

by Brett Perryman on May 12, 2008 5:10 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Most scouts I know

say that past the 5th-6th round, they don’t expect guys to be big leaguers. 5th-20th, you are drafting organizational soldiers with the hope that they can make adjustments/add velocity and surprise you. From there it is pure organizational filler or formerly to lock up the rights to a guy for a year.

I’m not sure at all what you are trying to say in that last part. I’m not sure how this would effect whether the Rangers would have Ponson, Feldman, Murray, Francisco, etc., in AAA.

by badradiorules on May 12, 2008 6:23 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Of course most scouts you know

don’t want expectations to get too high, nothing in it for them with that. You don’t expect to draft an MLBer in the 7th round, but teams often do.

by Brett Perryman on May 12, 2008 8:00 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I realize

that it doesn’t exactly prove my point, but the Rangers have seen exactly one (Mike Lamb-1997) seventh rounder see the big leagues since 1994. But they have had some success in rounds 8 and 9.

I doubt that scout’s want to lower expectations. If a seventh rounder plus makes it to the big leagues from their area that the organization signs on their word, they root like hell for them to make it to big leagues. That’s a huge feather in their cap. They just know it is not likely at that point.

by badradiorules on May 12, 2008 11:40 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

But my point

is that the teams are willing to do it because every once ina while, that 34th round guy . It doesn’t take long to figure that out – maybe he needed a different coaching perspective or just to get away from his imposing parents or something like that-

The cost associated with drafting 20 guys with a 1% chance each of making it is offset by that random-odd chance of hitting a guy who may become the equivalent of a 1st round pick talent-wise. Those 20 guys cost the organization what, $2 million over those 2 years? That’s what a single first round pick goes for.

Ideally, you keep drafting guys so long as the probability of making it multiplied by their value if they made it is a good deal. I imagine most clubs do this, which is why you see many of them stop drafting before the draft actually ends

by JBImaknee on May 12, 2008 3:40 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I also believe

that you should have to declare for the draft, like the other sports. So you draft and sign a minimum of 20 players (more if they keep the compensatory picks). So you have those 20 guys, 10-15 latin players, 5-10 UFAs (which they basically already sign) and most of the high school guys from the previous draft to fill your Spokane and Surprise rosters.

I also am in favor of eliminating two levels (short season A, and Advanced Rookie). But, like you said that’s a whole different argument.

by badradiorules on May 12, 2008 3:10 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs