A Brief History of Recent 11th Overall Picks
by Russ Oates on Dec 15, 2008 6:00 AM MST
in Rockies Draft
Email
PrintOne of the things Purple Row has always followed closely has been the amateur draft in June. It will be no different in 2009.
The Colorado Rockies return to the top half of the draft in 2009, after picking 25th in 2008. The Rockies would have had the 10th pick in the draft, but the Nationals failed to sign their first-round pick, RHP Aaron Crow. As a result, the Nationals obtained a second first-round pick. That 2009 pick is slotted right after his 2008 selection. He was ninth overall, so the Nationals have the 10th pick in 2009 (as well as the first overall pick).
Now, let's look at how the 11th overall pick has fared since the start of the decade. As I wrote in last year's look at the 25th pick, this review is not meant to determine how the Rockies' selection will pan out. It can, however, help us see how other teams approached this slot.
Breakdown:
College - 4
High School - 5
2000 - Dave Krynzel, Brewers, OF, High School - Dave Krynzel was at one point the center fielder of the future for the Brewers--it didn't prove true. He did well all the way through Double A, though a second half slump occurred at that level in 2003. He stayed at the Triple-A level in 2004 and 2005, but saw time with the Brewers in both years. During the 2006 offseason, Krynzel was involved in a six-player deal with the D'Backs. He hasn't seen the majors since 2005 and played in only 4 games for Tucson in 2008 before being released.
2001 - Kenny Baugh, Tigers, RHP, Rice - Beware Wayne Graham-coached pitchers. Wayne Graham is the head coach for the Rice University Owls and if you look at the track record of pitchers drafted during his tenure there, you'll see that many of his pitchers wind up having surgery. Baugh is one of those guys. Baugh actually pitched quite well that summer in low-A and Double-A ball. He quite possibly could have seen Detroit that same year, but in August he had shoulder problems. He missed all of 2002 before returning in 2003. Though he pitched well enough, his stuff was never like it was before the surgery. Baugh was shipped to the Padres during the '05-'06 offseason, and he never pitched for them after injuring his shoulder. Baugh moved to the Marlins' organization in 2007 and spent the end of May to the end of July moslty in the bullpen.
2002 - Jeremy Hermida, Marlins, OF, High School - Right now, Hermida stands as the most successful 11th overall pick from this decade. 2008 was a bit of a letdown for Hermida after his 2007. He had a 3.3 VORP in 2008, down from his 27.3 VORP the previous year. His EqA went down to .256 (slightly below average) from .300 in 2007. The Marlins have already started to look for suitors.
2003 - Michael Aubrey, Indians, 1B, Tulane - Aubrey made his major league debut in 2008 (15 games over two stints). His lack of power for a first baseman (48 in six seasons, 15 his season best) has held him back, but if given playing time he'd likely be an average first baseman.
2004 - Neil Walker, Pirates, C, High School - Walker would play well at one level and then receive a promotion. He would struggle at the new level, return there the next season, and then receive a promotion. You should know what happens next. Walker has since moved to third base. Repeating Triple A in 2008, Walker had a .684 OPS, but did have 16 homers. The Pirates drafted Vanderbilt's Pedro Alvarez back in June.
2005 - Andrew McCutchen, Pirates, OF, High School - McCutchen is on the verge of playing in Pittsburgh--if that's a good thing. He's steadily advanced up the ladder, spending all of 2008 in Triple A. As a 21-year-old, he hit .283/.372/.398. McCutchen, who plays center field, has speed, stealing 34 bases in 2008. He did, however, get thrown out 19 times.
2006 - Max Scherzer, Diamondbacks, RHP, MIssouri - Hey, we know this guy with heterochromia. He's going to be a good 'un.
2007 - Phillipe Aumont, Mariners, RHP, Canada/High School - Aumont should stay a starter as long as he can, but he did spend time as a reliever in 2008. Aumont is a very raw product, and Mariners fans will need to be patient with him.
2008 - Justin Smoak, Rangers, 1B, South Carolina - Smoak hit .383 with 23 homers for the Gamecocks in 2008 before being drafted by the Rangers. He played in 14 games after signing and should move fairly quickly, being one of the more polished hitters in the draft.
Hermida and Scherzer have had the most success. I'll predict that McCutchen and Smoak will join those two as proven major leaguers in the future. Aumont is too far away from making any predictions yet, and Walker, while added to the 40-man roster in November, will have to move off of third for Alvarez or move to another team if he hopes to play in the majors. Even then, it's not a good bet to make that he'll be a successful major leaguer.
Thoughts? Questions? Comments? What should future installments be?
85 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
So should I start writing down all of your predictions, too?
No injury caveat on Scherzer?
I really don’t know what to make of McCutchen yet. His highest ISO was at Hickory, just down the road from Asheville and a park that tends to inflate HR #s, particularly the season that McCutchen played there. If that was a mirage and he’s not going to have any or much power, for a contact hitter he still K’s too much. His 38/22 SB/CS rate at AAA is a step backwards. He’s still really young, he knows when to lay off, and I’d be saying the exact same thing about Dexter Fowler had he not had the season he just did while half a year older than Andrew, so like I say, I don’t know. Right now I’m leaning to him becoming sort of like Carlos Gomez, which isn’t bad, just not quite what Pirates fans are envisioning.
Well, I make far fewer than you.
Didn’t you project the division through 2012 some time early last year?
"Never Surrender Dreams" - Inscription on J. Michael Straczynski's bench
Purple Row - Covering all your Rockies needs!
Well so far, that projection isn't looking too bad.
San Francisco’s rebound is happening faster than I thought it would, as is San Diego’s decline, but the rest is going right along schedule. I’ll put up an updated five year glance later this offseason to give you and the Snakepit some more mockery material.
I'm not mocking.
I’m just concerned for that noble dream, if such one exists.
"Never Surrender Dreams" - Inscription on J. Michael Straczynski's bench
Purple Row - Covering all your Rockies needs!
Certainly doesn't exist with me.
I have never claimed nor sought to be objective, I think it’s a futile attempt in this kind of analysis anyway, and a strict numbers interpretation that far off would be boring, pretty much meaningless, and less insightful. I make my biases clear, as if they weren’t already. I like the Rockies a lot, don’t like the D-backs and am sort of indifferent toward the other three teams in the division.
"The future outwits all our certitudes." - Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr.
I guess I’ve always been more interested in what is and what was, not what will be.
"Never Surrender Dreams" - Inscription on J. Michael Straczynski's bench
Purple Row - Covering all your Rockies needs!
He only said that because he'd been so often wrong himself
When he tried to look into the future. Or even the present.
Contemporary American liberalism thus has no overpowering mystique. It lacks a rhapsodic sense. It has jettisoned many illusions. Its temper is realistic, even skeptical. Its objectives are limited. It is mistrustful of utopianism, perfectionism, and maximalism. It abhors the maudlin sloganism of the popular front of the ’30’s. It refuses to believe that lofty aspiration excuses cruel oppression. In particular, it lacks patience for those who can pronounce societies “progressive” which develop huge and terrible systems of forced labor and deny freedom of expression and movement to the bulk of their populations.
That’s from 1962’s The Politics of Hope, just before LBJ’s Great Society. Not that LBJ forced labor or was cruelly oppressive, but he certainly didn’t lack for slogans or lofty aspirations, as could be said for 2008’s version of contemporary American liberalism ed-note to readers: I’m not commenting on politics, just Schlesinger’s often misguided interpretations.
If Schlesinger was right a little more often, he’d have probably chosen a different catchphrase.
Sorry, got my dates wrong
Which I know is a no-no for the history crowd. It was quoted from a 1956 essay “A Note to Europeans” that appeared in the 1962 compilation book.
You get the macro-predictions
and I’ll take the micro-predictions, fair? I mean, how often do my in-game predictions actually turn out to be correct?
And I’m not sure if I should be laughing at this any more or if it’s become something a bit more serious, which I never intended it to be.
"Never Surrender Dreams" - Inscription on J. Michael Straczynski's bench
Purple Row - Covering all your Rockies needs!
I'm still laughing...
Apparently my Schlesinger dis seemed more serious than it’s intended also. I’m not taking the ribbing poorly.
Possible picks
I’ve seen Tyler Metzak, Kentrail Davis, and Andy Oliver mentioned at the 11 spot on various sites. I don’t know a lot about draft prospects and don’t follow it much, but Andy Oliver would seem to be the best bet of those three. He also seems the least likely to last that long. Given his legal problems, I assume he’s done with college. Kentrail Davis also seems intriguing, and it’d be nice to see the Rockies go for a corner outfielder with their first pick, as opposed to a pitcher (unless it’s Oliver).
Scherzer is going to be the Phil Hughes of the NL West, hopefully all potential and no production. Otherwise, yikes! It’ll be like the Giants staff, but better and with the potential to actually win games.
Kentrail Davis who we drafted before,
And couldn’t lure away from his college commitment to Tennessee. I certainly wouldn’t mind a redraft if he’s there and doesn’t fall flat this year.
Like I said
I don’t follow the draft much. Have the Rockies had luck drafting and signing any player they’d previously drafted?
Not at that caliber
The highest profile HS players in recent Rockies drafts that chose to go to college have been Micah Owings, Todd Frazier and Reese Havens, all three of which were drafted by other clubs later and passed over by the Rockies at least once.
Correction...
Reading Goldstein’s Mets Top 11 today reminded me of an error I made here. The Rockies actually didn’t have an opportunity to select Havens, as he was picked by the Mets a little before we got Friedrich. Had he been available to the Rockies with the pick, it’s doubtful the team would have selected him, however, so the general idea that the Rockies don’t really revisit past selections stands.
I think you can take Kentrail Davis and Oliver off the list
No way the Rockies select Davis. The Rockies have to fit likely three first rounders in their draft budget. As a draft eligible sophomore with Scott Boras as his agent and a big drop off in college bats after Davis, he has way too much leverage. Colorado will likely look for slot and a quick sign (once again), and Davis will be neither.
Maybe Andy Oliver if things go poorly in court and he A) blames Boras for intangling him in this mess and subsequently dumps him or B) Allows his desire to get back on a competitive playing field outweigh his financial interests, and the Rockies come to a pre-draft agreement with him (still likely over slot). For the record, I think Oliver could be a great pro pitcher, as he’s somewhat like the college version of Madison Bumgarner, a lefty that can survive with primarily one plus pitch and great command of it. Realisitically, the Rockies are more likely to land Oliver’s current/former teammate Tyler Lyons in the late first supplemental. Lyons is your prototype sup. first lefty, great command of slightly above average pitches, a bulldog demeanor, and a likely quick mover (see David Huff).
I’ve got a 3/4th’s finished draft article outlining why I believe Kyle Gibson of Missouri is an early candidate for our pick and how he might fit into the Rockies’ system and pitching philosophy. I hope to handicap our later first and sup. picks as well, once Fuentes signs with LAA/STL/Milwaukee.
Gibson
He would be a great choice at #11, but I’m not sure he lasts that long, at least at this point in the process. His combination of control and sinking, running fastball would play well at Coors, and he could still add a little bit of velocity. I’d love a chance at Alex White and that big sinking fastball too, but again, he’s probably going top-5. I’m looking forward to your post and your thoughts on Gibson.
Scherzer
I think Scherzer is going to be a very good pitcher, but I don’t think Webb stays in AZ through 2010. I suspect the D-backs will be shopping him next off-season when C.C. money comes up as the asking price.
by brainteaser on Dec 15, 2008 10:22 AM MST up reply actions
2010 sounds about right for Max's arm to fall apart, too
I’m really suspecting a pretty harsh collapse for the Snakes in 2011 (that’s going to be part of my 2009-2013 prediction) maybe sooner if they trade Webb next winter.
Economic Ramifications
If things roll along as they are now; next year’s draft might see a boost for college seniors who have no real options. The risk of premium undergrad and high school students choosing free college in hopes of a bigger signing bonus in 2010 might make for a surprising draft. I’m sure it won’t affect a select few, but I would be amazed if there’s not a bit of a different strategy this year.
Not entirely on topic but...
Here’s a link talking about teams interested in Taveras. It also talks about how Wigginton was cut. He doesn’t fit into our 2b plans right??
Creat a FanShot
for the link. It would be great if FanShots were used more often.
"Never Surrender Dreams" - Inscription on J. Michael Straczynski's bench
Purple Row - Covering all your Rockies needs!
No time man!
I have a presentation due, then a final tom, then a final the day after then two papers due a little after that and none of them involve fanshots at all!! srtghetyhetujetj
ETA
Speaking of FanShots, the sidebar list on the main page is way down there. I never notice them unless I’m scrolling down to see older posts (or if there’s a long post and I’m scrolling down). Is that the default?
That's the default.
I might be able to move it around, but I haven’t checked in some time.
"Never Surrender Dreams" - Inscription on J. Michael Straczynski's bench
Purple Row - Covering all your Rockies needs!
eh, could be
He’s below average defensively, but he makes up for it offensively. His Offense+Defense differential is better than Barmes’. Wouldn’t be a bad pickup if he came here, I’d rather have Barmes be a bench player, it just adds depth to the team.
It's Tricky to rock a rhyme, to rock a rhyme that's right on time It's Tulowitzki!...Tulo-witzki-witzki-witzki ..... rockiesmagicnumber.blogspot.com
by Andrew Martin on Dec 15, 2008 12:43 PM MST up reply actions
Question on Matt Harrington
The Nationals failed to sign their first round pick in 2007, so they get their 2009 first round pick plus a supplemental one in 2009., correct?
The Rockies failed to sign 7th overall pick Matt Harrington in 2000, but we didn’t have any additional picks? Did we lose them due to signing Mike Hampton?
by Andrew T. Fisher on Dec 15, 2008 1:02 PM MST reply actions
The Rockies got Jayson Nix
as a result of not signing Matt Harrington. They did lose their first round pick for signing Hampton.
Also, inserting extra picks into the first round instead of one in the supplemental first round for failing to sign a first rounder only took effect recently.
"Never Surrender Dreams" - Inscription on J. Michael Straczynski's bench
Purple Row - Covering all your Rockies needs!
Makes sense
Interesting rule change. We would have gotten the 8th overall pick under this rule in 2001 and instead took Nix with the 44th pick. Can’t help but imagine the hypothetical pick we would have gotten instead of Nix with the new rule…
by Andrew T. Fisher on Dec 15, 2008 1:14 PM MST up reply actions
Had we not signed
Hampton, we could have had Aaron Heilman (who was taken by the Mets with that pick)! Well, if you consider that a good thing.
"Never Surrender Dreams" - Inscription on J. Michael Straczynski's bench
Purple Row - Covering all your Rockies needs!
Double slap in the face
Not only could we have been high enough to select Wright had we not signed Hampton, but the Mets chose him with the pick awarded to them directly due to the signing. Sigh.
Not only could we have had Heilman, but maybe Casey Kotchman, Jeremy Sowers, Brad Hennessey, Noah Lowry, Jeremy Bonderman, Bobby Crosby, Todd Linden, Mike Fontenot or Gabe Gross.
None of those are particularly amazing….but compared to Nix + 7 years of paying Hampton…
by Andrew T. Fisher on Dec 15, 2008 1:38 PM MST up reply actions
Sowers is an interesting story.
He let it be known before the draft that he was pretty intent on going to college. At the time, the Reds were looking to cut costs in some areas, and the draft was one of those areas. They choice Sowers because they knew he wouldn’t sign, leading to saved money.
"Never Surrender Dreams" - Inscription on J. Michael Straczynski's bench
Purple Row - Covering all your Rockies needs!
Makes ya wonder.....
how, after all these years of coulda, woulda, shouldas, Dan O’Dowd still has a job.
Yes,
For he’s the only general manager who passed on David Wright that year.
Staying on the sunny side of Blake Street since 1993.
MHCSports - Denver sports analysis from Denver sports fans
David Wright and....
100 other coulda, shoulda, and woulda’s. In other words, so many missed opportunities over a long period of time, combined with many missteps (Hampton, anyone?) should usually lose the confidence of a team’s owners. But in this case, it hasn’t.
Why not? Is Dan really ThAT good that he gets a pass that a GM at a big-market club (with the pressures of a tough big city media) wouldn’t get? Personally, I think Dan was a good GM at one time, but has ceded his creativity in favor of staying liked by his bosses, and thus saving his job.
I'd like to see a study
Where you show that O’Dowd’s drafts have passed over more good players than most other GM’s over his tenure. I think you lack sufficient evidence. Just making an anecdotal list of coulda-woulda-shoulda’s says nothing.
It would only be fair to look at O'Dowd's 1st round picks
…since any player passed up that flourished from the 2nd round on would have been passed up by every major league team at least once.
O’Dowd’s 1st round picks: Matt Harrington, Jayson Nix (sorta), Jeff Francis, Ian Stewart, Chris Nelson, Troy Tulowitzki, Greg Reynolds, Casey Weathers, Christian Friedrich.
Every pick that O’Dowd made that has been with the team more than one season has made it to the majors. The only picks that you could be disappointed about are Nelson, Reynolds, Nix and Harrington. There is still a potential future for Reynolds and Nelson, so that’s premature. Nix was the 44th pick, so it’s hard to be too upset there. And Harrington sabotaged his own career with contract requirements. Three teams drafted him and failed to sign him….
…so…I think O’Dowd has been pretty good with drafts.
by Andrew T. Fisher on Dec 15, 2008 3:29 PM MST up reply actions
Ask and you shall receive
I evaluated every team’s draft from 2000 (O’Dowd’s first year) to 2006. I left out 2007 and 2008, since the jury is mostly out. I looked only at the first round picks and sandwich picks, unless the team had neither, then i included their top pick in the draft. There are many ways to look at it, but I chose my criteria to be # of players that have reached MLB with the original team that drafted them.
The Rockies have drafted 7 players from 2000 to 2006 that qualify, and 5 have made the majors, for a “success rate” of 71%.
Only one team in MLB has done better. Tampa Bay has cashed in on 6 of 7 of their picks to reach 86%. And that doesn’t include David Price, since he’s a 2007 pick.
Despite having the least number of qualified picks in MLB in that span, only 7 teams drafted more qualifying homegrown MLB players:
-Tampa (6 of 7)
-Arizona (6 of 9)
-San Francisco (7 of 11)
-Boston (9 of 19)
-Minnesota (6 of 13)
-Atlanta (7 of 16)
-Oakland (8 of 21)
I realize this criteria does not evaluate the quality of the players that reached the majors, nor does it evaluate past the first round. It also gives a bit of an advantage to struggling teams that can afford to bring their picks to the majors more quickly.
However you slice it though, 5 out of 7 is very solid. And to be second in the MLB in this stat flies in the face that O’Dowd has had poor drafts, especially compared to other teams, like Stl Louis (1 of 12…although Rasmus is coming), the Cubs (1 of 10 – Mark Prior), and Cleveland (2 of 12). You could also consider that Cook, Iannetta, Barmes, Baker, Holliday, Fowler, Hawpe, Atkins, Seth Smith, and Spilborghs were/are/will be all homegrown core players drafted later…
…yeah…I think O’Dowd has done just fine.
by Andrew T. Fisher on Dec 15, 2008 4:43 PM MST up reply actions
Here's some names with numbers
Just the first round:
Year/Rockies/Passed Over
2000/Harrington/Utley, Boof Bonser, Kelly Johnson
2001/Jayson Nix (suppl round)/Kelly Shoppach, JJ Hardy, Dallas McPherson
2002/Francis/Kazmir, Hamels, Cain
2003/Stewart (good job)/Conor Jackson, Billingsley, Carlos Quentin
2004/Chris Nelson/Stephen Drew*, Glen Perkins, Josh Fields, Phil Hughes
2005/Tulo (good job)/Cameron Maybin, Ellsbury, Garza
2005/Chaz Roe (suppl round)/Clay Buchholz, Garrett Olson
2006/Reynolds/Longoria, Andrew Miller, Kershaw, Lincecum, Scherzer, Antonelli, Ian Kennedy
Not worth doing ‘07 or ’08, and I wouldn’t take anyone over Stewart or Tulo. The bar – in terms of who would’ve been worth taking – is pretty low on Harrington, Nix and Chris Nelson.
Some of those (definitely *Drew off the top of my head – Boras client) had to be about cost concerns, but uhh, Longoria signed a deal similar to Tulo so cost concerns are overrated sometimes.
If you put the bar at: did the Rockies select players that would have produced quickly, which the franchise needed during all of those years mind you, then it’s not a good report.
Woops
I forgot about Chaz Roe. That makes the Rockies 5 of 8, 63%. We’d then rank 4th, behind Tampa, Arizona and Frisco…
by Andrew T. Fisher on Dec 15, 2008 5:14 PM MST up reply actions
You'd have to consider average draft position, though as well
Tampa Bay ranks so highly because they picked so early most of the time. It’s a lot easier to get layups when you’re starting underneath the basket.
Arizona’s success also came from paying a premium to select “safe” picks that had dropped to them. The Giants are actually pretty admirable for what they’ve done, as several of those drafts were well off the top position.
Certainly a fair point
That’s why Boston’s drafts are mesmerizing. How they managed to pluck 9 players in the low end of first round from 2000 to 2006 that have reached the majors is really pretty amazing. I suppose I’ll look into incorporating avg draft position soon, but i have a final to study for.
by Andrew T. Fisher on Dec 15, 2008 5:23 PM MST up reply actions
?
Arizona’s success also came from paying a premium to select "safe" picks that had dropped to them.
Hmm? The only example of that I could think of would be Stephen Drew…. Dbacks first round picks since 2003:
2003 – Conor Jackson, 3B and Carlos Quentin, OF
2004 – Stephen Drew, SS
2005 – Justin Upton, 2B
2006 – Max Scherzer, RHP
2007 – Jarrod Parker, RHP
2008 – Daniel Schlereth, LHP
Fire Vinny Cerrato, the raquetball partner.
Scherzer's also in this category
He was considered a polished college arm that would at the very least make it quickly to the majors as a reliever. Upton would be one of the slam dunks while under the basket. The point is that’s three of the five picks between 2003-2006 that were considered very safe as far as projected MLB return. The Rockies had one in Troy Tulowitzki, one in Greg Reynolds.
Now wait a second --
isn’t this a bit arbitrary? The Dbacks have the top pick overall and choose Upton, who was the consensus top talent in 2005, and that makes him a “safe” pick, and therefore dismissable? Couldn’t that be applied to ANY top 5 or so draft pick? (When they work out, anyway)
All of our first round picks from ‘03 to ’06 are starting, (Q with the ChiSox) ergo they were “safe” picks? What, then, is the difference between a “safe” pick and a pick that’s just plain successful? And doesn’t it prove a point when one team’s “safe” pick in Reynolds doesn’t look particularly promising? If anything, I’d say that Scherzer was a bit of a risky pick (like Lincecum) because many scouts had injury concerns due to his delivery.
Fire Vinny Cerrato, the raquetball partner.
by DbacksSkins on Dec 15, 2008 10:32 PM MST up reply actions
I think you're missing my point
Many top 5 picks are “safe” picks even if not all of them turn out to be so safe (like Reynolds), particularly the college players. Upton was widely considered the best talent available in a decade, I don’t think you get anymore of a slam dunk then that. Not everyone is though, if it’s a weak draft or questionable call (Matt Bush instead of Drew) teams put a lot of risk into their pick anyway. Quentin and Jackson were not safe picks because there’s a considerably higher bar to reach for corners to become starters. That they reached that bar is more a credit to your team’s talent evaluators than somebody like Tulo, who was considered the best college position talent in that draft. Evaluating picks this way is arbitrary, but it’s based on a consensus of opinions rather than just mine.
That's fair, I guess. Still arbitrary, though.
But your original comment that I took issue with was:
Arizona’s success also came from paying a premium to select "safe" picks that had dropped to them.
It seemed to me that the only pick that really “dropped” to us was Drew, because of signability issues. Scherzer had signability concerns as well, as a Boras client, but he was also a bit of a stretch pick because of the scouting on him — high risk, high reward. (Somewhat like Lincecum in that respect)
What seems arbitrary, to me, is dismissing draft picks as being “safe”. They’re only “safe” when they pan out. The draft is still a crapshoot.
Quentin and Jackson were not safe picks because there’s a considerably higher bar to reach for corners to become starters. That they reached that bar is more a credit to your team’s talent evaluators than somebody like Tulo, who was considered the best college position talent in that draft.
I still cry myself to sleep sometimes remembering Carlos Quentin…. :-(
Fire Vinny Cerrato, the raquetball partner.
It's hard to believe in retrospect
But Scherzer was considered less a risk than Lincecum at the time of the draft due to the strangeness of Timmy’s delivery and his size. If you polled a panel of scouts about which college pitcher was most likely to make the majors in that draft, Scherzer would have ranked ahead of everybody, even Reynolds.
But what I'm saying is that 25 other teams could make a similar list
And several of them would have to include players like Tulo or Francis that they passed over. This does nothing to show that O’Dowd’s drafts are inferior to other GM’s.
Indeed....
it does seem rather unscientific as a study — it’s like singling out the CEO of Lehman Brothers or AIG for criticism, without taking into account the overall economic climate.
Fire Vinny Cerrato, the raquetball partner.
Well, you've now seen it......
and I think it’s not a clearcut record of excellence, though it’s not BAD.
With the Rockies payroll model, they NEED to be excellent and not miss out on their opportunities to pick impact players. The most egregious thing in the O’Dowd era, something I knew was a major whiff at the time, was the Reynolds pick when Longoria and Lincecum were clearly higher ceiling talents.
My comment, though, was not just about O’Dowd’s drafts. It’s the entirity of his record: drafts, trades, and free agent money spent. I’m still waiting for my Rox to sign a run-producing hitter in his prime on the free agent market. Hasn’t happened since………..LARRY WALKER in 1995!
Even though you may have a fair point,
You’re using a misleading standard and that makes me not want to take you seriously. Todd Helton has to count as a run-producing free agent in his prime since the Rockies bought him out well beyond his slave days. Since he wasn’t signed on the “market”, though you can conveniently ignore that. Since Walker’s extension wasn’t on the “market” you can ignore that as well. It’s an agenda driven half-truth rather than a real honest and fair assessment.
Give me a break.....
“Agenda driven half truth”???
And what agenda, pray tell, do you think I have?
I am simply a fan looking for the truth as objectively as I can. Sure, I’ve long since decided that both O’Dowd and Hurdle have been retained well past their shelf life expiration dates. But that opinion is based on their respective track records. Now, to your points:
1. The Helton extension, the one “free agent” run producer in his prime that he did keep past his slavery years, was a horrible contract. Do you really want to use that example as any sort of positive statement about O’Dowd’s competence?
2. The Walker extension does not qualify since he was our property at the time of the negotiations, and on the back-end of his prime.
It’s a half truth, in fact, to use either Walker OR Helton as examples of run-producers in their primes signed off the free-agent market. It’s always easier to A) negotiate with players who are property of the club at the time of the contract negotiations (i.e. we had exclusive negotiating rights at the time with each player), and B) are willing to spend silly money to extend them. They were both bad deals. Let’s see a GOOD free agent signing, a true one in a competitive bidding environment, which turns out to be a fair deal for us. Hasn’t happened.
Thus, my point stands that O’Dowd hasn’t done enough to prove his competence as a GM to be retained for 9 seasons now.
Agenda was too strong a word...
You have a clear bias to your comments against O’Dowd, however, that does effect your credibility, just like my clear biases should effect how seriously people take me. Everything you measure O’Dowd on is done without a control, so he’s not being measured against some real GM standard, just some vague benchmarks:
Let’s see a GOOD free agent signing, a true one in a competitive bidding environment, which turns out to be a fair deal for us. Hasn’t happened.
Define a “good” free agent signing, define a “true one”, but also explain why it would be necessary to prove O’Dowd’s competence. Isn’t avoiding “bad” free agent signings also a measure of competence? Are “false” free agent signings, such as extending Tulo into his FA years incompetence? I want to see some clear standards of what you would consider a competent GM, standards that a top third of baseball’s current GM’s qualify for, before I will really buy into this.
C'mon now....
We can’t measure GM production and rank them the way we can for players. There is no “VORP” or “VORGM” statistic that I’m aware of. However, I AM aware that most GM’s don’t last for over 9 seasons with one club when 7 of them have been losing seasons, and bad signings have occured. Hampton, Neagle, Helton and Walker extensions, etc. When our highest draft pick ever was a “popout” as someone else noted, when we sit on our laurels after our World Series year, going with an unproven guy at 2nd base, and I could drone on and on.
The point is that Dan O’Dowd has done little to distinguish himself as a GM. For a team that was remade into a small or mid-market franchise, that’s not good enough. Such franchises need more excellence from their GMs since our ability to outspend our mistakes is not there, either by ownership choice or necessity.
Tell me, RoxGirl, why you think O’Dowd is accceptable or good, then? How would you objectively rank him? I doubt you could answer your own questions vis-a-vis why you think O"Dowd has earned tenure. That is, your opinion is every bit as “biased” as mine……and I fail to see why it’s more credible.
Well you mention one pretty decent measure
GM’s above anything else probably should be measured by team victories. I actually like a cumulative RS/RA, as it will weed out some of the luck of winning and losing and get a little closer to the actual performance level of the ballclub. O’Dowd, as you point out does pretty poorly here.
As far as drafts, players making the majors that last for more than one season are a decent measure. I don’t like considering just MLB players because you could inflate draft stats with junk filler replacements rather than actual talent. In this measure, despite your consistent claims to show otherwise, O’Dowd does well.
Does talent taken from the FO find success with other teams? (Again, measured by wins, runs, playoff appearances) I guess the jury’s still a bit out on this, but the Rockies talent has shown to be a desirable commodity to other franchises.
Maybe I’m not more credible than you, I’ve never said that I was, and I’ve freely admitted my biases at least four times now in this very thread and numerous times elsewhere, I am just telling you where I’m having trouble giving credence to your opinion. In the end, it’s because you insist on droning on and on and on as if O’Dowd was one of the worst GM’s in the game, grossly incompetent, with no redeeming qualities whatsoever when I or anybody else could look to at least few correct decisions. Your refusal to acknowledge those successes makes it more difficult to accept your evaluation of the failures you harp about.
Dan is not grossly incompetent.....
and I never said he was. I said the totality of his work product in 9 seasons with the Rockies has been less than excellent. And excellence is what’s needed for the small/midmarket Rockies to sustain success with this ownership group’s model.
We certainly are never buying ourselves a championship contender with the Monforts. Thus, we need a FO that outsmarts, outwits, and outlasts other teams, just like the game of Survivor.
O’Dowd has not distinguished himself in recent years. I think I also wrote that. Again, I said he was a good GM at one time, and then he went into personal job surviival mode. He did a VERY good job at that, at least.
I think he's actually done better in recent years
both in the draft, with free agents and trades. de la Rosa is a find. The Jennings trade was brilliant. Practically the entire team is built from draft picks.
Who out there would you replace O’Dowd with?
by Andrew T. Fisher on Dec 15, 2008 10:42 PM MST up reply actions
The best point made so far...
The Rockies do need to be excellent in drafts given the other “constraints” on improving the team. Thus, even if Reynolds was the only true misfire in the DOD era, (at this point) it appears to be such a colossal mistake that it taints everything else. Moreover, this isn’t a monday morning QB job, either. I remember ESPN commentators (Law?) being absolutely incredulous that Reynolds was picked #3 overall, among others. Was it as bad as the Nuggs drafting Skita over Amare? Maybe not, but its close. (I don’t want to come across as an attack on Reynolds, its not his fault that DOD picked him. He is who he is. Hopefully he can contribute someday.)
As RG says, every team in the league is probably subject to similar anaylsis. Everyone misses guys, and generally its not fair to try to play the “what if” game 3 years later. That said, and as to the GRG point, the Rockies needed a home run with that pick and ended up with a popout.
We'll see
It’s a bit premature to call Reynolds a “popout.” He was drafted just two years ago. He’s one of only 8 players from that draft to appear in the Majors so far. He’s only 23. While he’s not doing much to excite scouts and he’s not Tim Lincecum (8 other teams passed on him too), he still has a lot of time to figure it out.
With that said, when you’re the second overall pick, you have a lot to live up to…
by Andrew T. Fisher on Dec 15, 2008 6:07 PM MST up reply actions
Popout
was probably too strong. Again, I don’t want to make this a bang-on-Reynolds post because its not fair to him.
That said, the fact that he made the majors is pretty meaningless to me. He was not good enough to pitch in the majors this year. The criteria should not be the number of players that made the majors, it should be the number of players that were good enough to play in the show. Right now, GR does not fit that description.
Again, time will tell, but its not looking great. Finding a #4/#5 starter is not that hard…and even if it was, the place to look is no the top of the draft.
Reynolds
This pick has been debated over and over, and I wonder if he was picked BECAUSE the team felt so much pressure to “hit” with #3. Reynolds’ upside wasn’t/isn’t there, but his downside was a fast-arriving #4 or #5 starter. My feeling is the team was so afraid of coming up empty with the pick that they passed up all of the higher upside players for the “safety” of a player who could at least fill a spot in the bottom of the rotation.
If safety
were the prevailing criterion in that selection, then the FO leadership was not of the mindset to actually improve the frannchise’s fortune’s with that pick. Given that it was #2 overall, it would be a grievous error to go the “safe” route there.
Personally, I think they picked Reynolds, who was ranked #15 in B.A. mock drafts, because they did poor scouting. They saw one came where he beat Lincecum, and somehow thought that placed Reynolds in Tim’s class. They probably felt Lincecum would injure himself too.
This is where I think the stronger case lies
Making mistakes in the draft happens. The Rockies still have a pretty strong chance to see four players from that 2006 haul (Reynolds, Hynick, McKenry, S. Robinson) make the majors, which would qualify it as a successful small market draft. The bigger issue is that the Rockies knowingly passed up on potential impact talents because they weren’t sure things. Why was the FO so afraid to make a mistake? That fear of reaching out for a bigger prize actually made their mistake for them.
afraid to make mistakes is right on for DOD
and runs afoul of one of my favorite quotes: “The timorous may stay at home.”
Yeah, becuase the talent evaluation
was poop.
And with regard to your above comment, RG, of course every team could make a list like this. It’s certainly easy to say “make a list of the crappy picks the Rockies have made under O’Dowd to provide evidence of his failure” and then say “well, every team has a list like that.” That’s not the point. The point is that the high-end talent evaluation was awful for his early years. Tulo, Stewart and Francis hold it up for him, but the rest are thoroughly disappointing as first round picks.
I’m not saying he deserves to be fired. If it was going to be done it should have been done in 2004, but now they’ve got a decent thing going and we should see how the Holliday trade turns out, and see what he can pull of for Atkins. If those don’t end up bringing back some talent the Rockies need to get back into contention, his standing needs to be reevaluated. But that’s a year or two down the road, not this season.
I’m not sure what calculating the percentage of first round choices who’ve played in the majors really proves. But comparing the Rockies’ first round picks with others after them demonstrates that the talent evaluation was poor.
No it doesn't
Poor talent evaluation is the Astros. It’s the Pirates, it’s the Orioles before Wieters, it’s the Royals. Go ahead and trade all our first round picks with those teams’ if you wish.
What would demonstrate that the Rockies talent evaluation was poor would be no or limited returns on the draft. This has only happened in one O’Dowd draft out of eight.
Although I agree with the rest of your points.
Not to nitpick
but the Orioles began turning things around pre-Wieters, 2005 to be exact, with Rockies-esque drafts of a good surrounding cast around a mediocre first rounder (yet ones with still solid potential). Can’t excuse their 2004 Draft, but with the hiring of Joe Jordan, they turned that ship around rather quick.
To go further on a tangent, the Orioles could be more than a darkhorse if they land Teixeira. A four man outfield of Reimold-Jones-Markakis-
Scott could be more productive than Tampa’s more athletic crew, and you have to like a middle order that includes Tex and a rebounded Huff, not to mention the minors best overall player Matt Wieters.
Perhaps they aren’t there yet, but Matsuz, Tillman, and Arrieta could quickly change the rotation’s fortunes in the next two years.
Yeah, I meant the other team 30 miles south
I don’t know how I confuse Orioles and Nationals other than geographic proximity.
Matt Harrington and Nix
I think the statement that the DOD early drafts had poor talent evaluation prior to Francis is a little inaccurate. In 2000, Matt Harrington was THE guy. He was all Baseball America could talk about for months leading up to the draft. I remember feeling elated when I found out he was the pick because he was going to be the #1 starter every team needs, and the Rocks were going to get him. If anything, Bill Schmidt and DOD failed in their character evaluation of Harrington. In fact, he might be the big reason why character is such a big issue in the FO these days. Anyway, given the fact that Harrington completely screwed himself again and again, I don’t think any blame can be placed on the Rockies for making the selection.
As for Nix, the 44th pick of the draft is crap. He was a high school kid that led his team to the Texas 5A baseball title with his bat. Texas. That monstrosity of a state and the most competitive of high school classifications. I am willing to bet that he was drafted on the advice of the Texas scout at the time who had two years before given them Jason Jennings, who won the ROY a year later. Nix was a high risk, high reward choice. He flopped. We need to move on. Can Nelson take over 2nd in the next couple years? We’ll see. We have to remember that he was also a very highly regarded high school bat too in his draft year. Hindsight is always 20/20 after all.
I think outside of GR (who I still have hope for), there has been nothing wrong with the 1st round talent evaluation of the Rockies scouting staff.
Personally
I think all the scouts in baseball are just completely stupid when it comes to tall pitchers. I think it’s such a random thing to be so enamored with. If Lincecum was 6’3", where does he go in that draft? If Reynolds was 6’ is he considered a first-round talent? True taller people are generally stronger and true when they release the ball it’s closer to home plate, but for every Sabathia and Randy Johnson there’s a Mark Hendrickson, a Daniel Cabrera, a [generic pitcher who’s 6’7 but couldn’t cut it above AA].
Actually, let me amend that statement:
O’Dowd never even had the chance to draft Wright. Though there were some decent second round picks.
Eh, we’ve gotten better throughout the years in the draft, no question.
Staying on the sunny side of Blake Street since 1993.
MHCSports - Denver sports analysis from Denver sports fans
The MLB draft is the ultimate crapshoot
With injury concerns, small schools, high schools vs colleges, signability issues and other issues, it’s really difficult to grade an organization on the draft. Plus, there’s the development of players in the minors. Perhaps Jayson Nix would have been a legit MLB player under a different organization’s coaching. Or maybe Mike Stodolka would have been a solid MLB pitcher had he been developed in Oakland’s system instead of Kansas City’s….it’s so hard to judge.
By the way, teams passed on Troy Tulowitzki in favor of Jeff Clement and Ricardo Romero. Ian Stewart was passed in favor of Chris Lubianski, Timothy Stauffer, and Ryan Harvey. Jeff Francis was neglected in favor of Bryan Bullington, Chris Gruler, Adam Lowen, Clint Everts, and Scott Moore. AND….seven teams passed on Todd Helton to choose players including Ben Davis, Ariel Prieto, Jaime Jones, and Johnathon Johnson.
The point: you can point out missed opportunities for every franchise. I actually think O’Dowd has done a solid job in recent years considering his financial restraints.
by Andrew T. Fisher on Dec 15, 2008 3:02 PM MST up reply actions
agree but...
…what in the world was any of our scouts/staff thinking in the 2006 draft? There is no way ANYBODY can justify taking Greg Reynolds with that pick. When you have that high of a pick, you take the best player available…period. And even if they decided they should pass on Longoria since they thought Stewart was going to be a star, they still should have taken the best pitcher available. I think it’s fair to say that they’ve done pretty well at evaluating hitting talent with early picks…but they’re pitching evaluations have been terrible. Other than Francis, what other Rockies 1st round pitcher has really had much success in the majors? And even that pick looks mediocre in hindsight given that Hamels, Kamir and Cain were taken later in that first round.
First round pitchers
Hey, if you want to blame Bob Gebhard for doing a crappy job in the draft, I’ll side with you. But as for the three that O’Dowd’s picked – Francis has been a good pick, and I’m still willing to call the jury out on Friedrich, Weathers and, yes, even Reynolds. I’m more patient than most though when it comes to these matters.
Staying on the sunny side of Blake Street since 1993.
MHCSports - Denver sports analysis from Denver sports fans
1st round CO pitchers
Jake Westbrook and Jason Jennings have had quality careers, recent history aside.
Signability/Contract concerns
Sadly, that contributed to making Reynolds our pick, the “safe pick.” Even on draft day, everyone said he didn’t have close to the potential ceiling as other players, but was the safest bet to sign and make it to the majors. Still, it’s hard not to be peeved at that one.
by Andrew T. Fisher on Dec 15, 2008 5:33 PM MST up reply actions
Maybe
We could have taken Heilman and packaged him for JJ Putz
by Andrew T. Fisher on Dec 15, 2008 5:26 PM MST up reply actions
Nevermind
on Kotchman and Gross…both were taken before the forfeited pick that netted Heilman
by Andrew T. Fisher on Dec 15, 2008 1:40 PM MST reply actions
yea
You also have to realize, lots of times GM’s are responding to ownership. Sometimes they make crappy decisions with huge contracts because ownership wants to flash its money and its clout.
O’Dowd did really well with trading Jason Jennings. A year from now it will be clearer how well he did with trading Holliday.
I feel like if I ran a team, I’d be more interested in signing the best player though than the best player who fits our price range. No one is going to be that cheap in the first round and if you’re saying I’m going to sign this player because he is that cheap you’re going about it all wrong…
Hey
Since you said “what should future installments be?” Maybe a good exercise would be to see picks after the first round that the Rockies made who became decent major leaguers. I always feel like the true testament of good scouting is players drafted in later rounds since theoretically first round talents are all quality (obviously not true, but again theoretically).
If you have more time, I suppose you could compare how the Rockies have fared with drafting players rounds 2 through x with other teams (NL West teams?). But that seems like a lot of work…
This is a good idea,
since the first round is usually an exercise in consensus.
To REALLY figure out how well a team drafts, you need to check their success in the lower rounds — all 2000 or so.
Fire Vinny Cerrato, the raquetball partner.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- Josh Hamilton on public relapse: ‘It was just wrong. That’s all it comes down to.’
- Photo: The Marlins’ ridiculous-looking home run sculpture is almost complete
- Yankees GM Brian Cashman lures alleged stalker into police dragnet
- Report: Josh Hamilton had a relapse with alcohol
- Happy Birthday Boy! Wes Ferrell, the best-hitting pitcher of all-time, would be 104
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
