2007 1st Round Pick Casey Weathers

by Russ Oates on Jun 7, 2007 12:55 PM MDT in Rockies Draft

Casey Weathers

RHP, Vanderbilt (profile)

HT: 6'1" WT: 200 lbs.

2006 Stats: 21 APP, W-L 1-1, 3 SV, 27 IP, 16 BB, 38 K, 3.33 ERA

2007 Stats: 31 APP, W-L 12-2, 7 SV, 49.1 IP, 25 H, 15/13 R/ER, 21 BB, 75 K, 2.37 ERA, .154 BAA

Bio: Weathers began his college career as a junior college player for Sacramento City College in 2004. As a freshman there, he played the field for a few games but showed better promise on the mound. He transferred to Vanderbilt for his junior year and was solely a reliever for the Commodores. The Tigers drafted him in the 25th round, but he elected to return for his senior season.

Entering the 2007 season, Vanderbilt head coach Tim Corbin named Weathers the closer for the team. He did nothing to disappoint anyone this past season as you can see from his stats above. His fastball normally sits around 96 MPH and his slider touches 84-86 MPH on most occasions. He should be a guy who moves quickly through the Rockies system once he signs his contract.

Other Links: John Manuel is surprised to see Weathers go this high.

MILB.com scouting report from February.

Official Rockies Press Release.

Commentary: On the surface, this looks like a bad choice. The Rockies need more than a reliever to fix their problems and there were several high upside guys available at the #8 pick. But this pick may be an indication that Fuentes will be traded if not before the July trade deadline then probably during the off-season. As the comments to this profile mention, this pick is Weathers + what we get in return for Fuentes. Not a great or good pick by any means taken alone, but combined with what will be gained in the future, this might look like a good pick in a year or two.

Tweet Comment 30 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

This seems like a very poor choice.

Especially with high-upside players like Dominguez, Heyward, Porcello, Parker and Aumont still available.

Fuentes is a goner at the trade deadline.

I don't like this....

by malakian on Jun 7, 2007 12:58 PM MDT reply actions

I agree

With the high upside players that were still available it's obvious that this was going to be their pick all along. I would have rather seen them take any of the players that Malakian has listed here instead. I can't remember who stated it earlier in this thread, but the Rockies need to focus on players that can help get them a lead...then worry about players that can help them hold onto a lead.

by cofan17 on Jun 7, 2007 2:14 PM MDT up reply actions

Congrats to Casey Weathers

and if he happens to stumble on to our humble abode here, I'd like to point out that we don't dislike him. He's a terrific reliever and a sure-fire future closer that may be more polished and mentally tough than Corpas. He will be a fantastic late innings stopper for this club.

It's not the guy, it's the position. This team is a loser and needs a guy that can lead to wins, not protect them...

by David OhNo on Jun 7, 2007 1:02 PM MDT reply actions

I'm a believer... again

It seems to be a theme, where I go against the grain, but I like this choice. Every year we seem to be spending millions on washed up bullpen retreads like Jose Mesa or LaTroy Hawkins, when that money should be used at positions that are more important. Weathers will come in fast and inexpensively and be a massive upgrade over Tom Martin, and probably a massive upgrade over Hawkins. I know this isn't the flashy way to make this fix, but it's quick and cost effective and wouldn't be available in any other round or through trade without giving up more than we'd be otherwise drafting at this slot.

Plus, like I mentioned this morning, this gives us the flexibility to trade Fuentes in the offseason (or later this season if we fall out of the race) and get a much better return for him.

I know I'm in the minority on this, but I'm not seeing too many negatives with this pick. Good player, good stuff, good guy.

by Rox Girl on Jun 7, 2007 1:20 PM MDT reply actions

I get what you're saying

and I agree, the player is great.

However, we can't trust Hurdle to use Weathers properly, nor expect the Rockies to move him terribly quickly. I do think he'll be our closer of the future over Corpas, because his repertoire is more well rounded and he pounds the zone a little better. It's just we have just given the league's worst bullpen manager another toy to underuse. Hopefully Hurdle is only a memory when Weathers makes his debut.

I think there are just as many if not more negatives associated with this pick, starting with the fact that it shows again the Rockies aren't allowed to go beyond slot, and are likely encouraged to be spendthrifts early.

by David OhNo on Jun 7, 2007 1:35 PM MDT up reply actions

The negatives aren't about Weathers, though

They're about the organization's first round draft philosophy of staying within slot, the manager, the BA espoused romantic ideal that a first round pick needs to be a high risk/high reward gamble, and so on... but when you look at the player we got, mid 90's fastball with movement, good secondary pitches, outstanding makeup and maturity and an ability to help the major league team very soon in a position we've been underwhelming in for the last six seasons, I'm still not seeing a lot not to like, despite the reservations.

Oh nuts. Lance Berkman. Another plus, getting rid of Fogg puts Buchholz back in the rotation.

by Rox Girl on Jun 7, 2007 1:51 PM MDT up reply actions

You're right

it isn't about the player, and to stay consistent, I like him as much as Schmidt and more than Heyward. Also to be fair, the draft ideal blew up in the Rockies' faces with the Pirates not taking Mesaraco.

The player will be great, but he won't be the shot in the arm the roster needs persay, nor does he put out the fire started by fans that still believe that the Rockies' brass is doing the best it can to see that the big league product is a winner. Weathers will be a quick, cheap sign, and likely won't match the upside of the player taken right behind the Rockies, and could still leave fans guessing why we didn't take one of the bigger upside guys.

by David OhNo on Jun 7, 2007 2:04 PM MDT up reply actions

Bright Side......

So do we judge this pick by itself.....or after the dominos fall?

Much like the Larry Walker trade (with the money to free up landing Dexter Fowler).....do we judge this by itself, or combined with the eventual haul from a Brian Fuentes trade?

Since this pick allows us to trade Brian Fuentes in the off-season.......I think we should consider the 2-3 prospects we get back in return when judging this pick.

We really aren't just getting Weathers.....we're getting Weathers plus what we get back for Fuentes

by sg8335aa on Jun 7, 2007 1:21 PM MDT reply actions

Like BA states

in their team capsules, you have to grade the Rockies' drafts on the body of work. I'd be more dissapointed if we didn't have a pick in each round like Baltimore. Hopefully we make a few later splashes.

by David OhNo on Jun 7, 2007 1:30 PM MDT up reply actions

That doesn't make much sense to me.

This really shouldn't relate to Fuentes that much. I think they were planning on trading Fuentes over the next few months regardless of who they drafted.

The Rockies already had a bunch of good relief prospects who could take over the closer's role in the near future. Andrew Johnston, Pedro Strop, Darren Clarke, Steven Register, Juan Morillo and Manny Corpas--- The organization was already stacked with potential closers before Weathers.

by malakian on Jun 7, 2007 1:37 PM MDT up reply actions

How quickly can he make the majors?

What's the usual timeframe to see a releiver make it to the bigs?

Fuzzy Wuzzy was a bear. Fuzzy Wuzzy had no hair. Fuzzy Wuzzy wasn't fuzzy, was he!

by Lightning on Jun 7, 2007 1:31 PM MDT reply actions

2008 for sure.....

The question remains if we'll see him in September or not.....

by sg8335aa on Jun 7, 2007 1:32 PM MDT up reply actions

This season

Weathers is polished, moreso than any pitcher in the draft outside of his teammate, Price.

by Rox Girl on Jun 7, 2007 1:33 PM MDT up reply actions

I should fix that

He's polished, but he's new to pitching, so there will probably be a few kinks to work out before he gets here. Still, he knows what he's doing on the mound with every batter.

by Rox Girl on Jun 7, 2007 1:35 PM MDT up reply actions

So

Once Weathers signs which team will he be assigned to? As a college senior is he advanced enough to begin his professional career in Tulsa? Could he realistically make his major league debut in September?

What's the general opinion on his ETA?

by malakian on Jun 7, 2007 1:32 PM MDT reply actions

Well

As I point out in my post below, he's actually relatively inexperienced for a college senior. He could start at Modesto, but it all depends on if the Rockies want to keep him in relief or see if he'll fly as a starter.

The Coors Effect... thinking about changing the name to The Humidor Effect.

by Rox Fan in TN on Jun 7, 2007 1:33 PM MDT up reply actions

I agree, at the lowest, I see him

debuting in Asheville, but I think Modesto's most likely with an outside shot at Tulsa.

He's definitely capable of pitching in the majors this year, but the Rockies will probably wait for 2008.

by Rox Girl on Jun 7, 2007 1:37 PM MDT up reply actions

No reason to rush him

Unless something drastic happens (say, for instance, the Dodgers, Diamondbacks, and Padres all suddenly being awful and us being great) there's no reason to rush him to the majors this year. However, I could see him breaking camp with the team in '08.

The Coors Effect... thinking about changing the name to The Humidor Effect.

by Rox Fan in TN on Jun 7, 2007 4:53 PM MDT up reply actions

Weathers

I'm guessing I'm the only guy here who has seen him pitch, so here's my take. #8 is probably an overdraft, but guess who led the Vanderbilt staff in wins this season? Let's look at the positives. He's a college senior, so he'll probably be a quick sign. As college seniors go, he's relatively inexperienced (he's only been pitching for a couple of years) and doesn't have a lot of wear and tear on his arm. He's great at getting four- or five-out saves; he hasn't been used strictly as a ninth-inning guy.

And let's not forget that we are talking about a guy who pitches for a team with some really good pitchers. Is it guaranteed that he'll be a reliever in the majors? The Rockies might try to turn him into a starter, and might get themselves a steal that way.

The Coors Effect... thinking about changing the name to The Humidor Effect.

by Rox Fan in TN on Jun 7, 2007 1:33 PM MDT reply actions

Interesting point on starting

but I see him more in the Houston Street closer mold, where he can do like you suggest with the five out saves.

I also hope this does preclude a Fuentes trade. with a fast declining strikeout rate and increasing line drive rate, Fuentes could be a ticking time bomb. Better to get value while we still can.

by David OhNo on Jun 7, 2007 1:40 PM MDT up reply actions

I really don't mind this pick

First off, how many Rockies fans have we heard complaining about this team always playing for 5 years down the road? This kid may be helping in the bigs sooner than anybody else in this draft. A really optimistic person could take that as a sign that management is finally getting seriously serious about winning.

Also, Fuentes may be a relative strength on this team right now as a closer. Key words - MAY BE and RIGHT NOW. In truth, he gets hard a lot and seems to have peaked. And let's face it, he was never a closer you were going to win big with. Who here would have felt good with him out there in a game seven protecting a one run lead? IF this team wants to be a winner, moving Fuentes while he can bring a decent return and bringing in a guy who has a chance to be a dominant closer feels like a reasonable step to me.

by Junction Rox on Jun 7, 2007 2:05 PM MDT reply actions

Er, to edit my comment above

It should say that Fuentes gets HIT hard a lot. Nice first effort on my part.

by Junction Rox on Jun 7, 2007 2:14 PM MDT reply actions

Weathers

Of course I had to go through my three phases of Draft Day Reaction - which I do for all of my teams in the major sports. It goes like this:

(pick announced)

"What? That's not who I wanted them to pick! BOOOOO! This guy blows!"
"Well, OK, I'm sure this guy is a pretty decent player, but he's still not who I wanted. Booooo.
"Eh, I suppose this won't be too bad. After all, the draft is a crapshoot anyway and blah blah blah..."

And so it goes with Weathers. I'd rather they have reached for somebody tougher to sign or somebody with a higher upside... but Weathers' numbers as Vandy's closer this year are absolutely phenomenal. The first guy I thought of when I really started thinking about the pick was Huston Street and I think that'd be a pretty nifty upside, particularly if we can flip Fuentes for something of value to go along with it.

I think Fuentes is in a different uniform by July 31... unless the Rox are within single digits of the NL West leaders. O'Dowd and the Monforts will be crucified even worse than they've ever been before. But we'll know better. As much as I like Fuentes, he makes me nervous on far too many occasions to consider him an 'elite' closer. Weathers, on the other hand, could be just that.

mvn.com/mlb-rockies - The Row's only Josh Fogg fan

by Franchise26 on Jun 7, 2007 3:31 PM MDT reply actions

Overpaying

I don't see how overdrafting, especially at the top of the first round, is very much different from overspending on free agents.

Barry Zito would almost certainly have won more games this year for the Rockies than Josh Fogg will win for the Rockies but most people find it easy to understand why the Rockies overpaying for Zito would be foolish and would actually delay the Rockies eventual (theoretical) return to the playoffs. Value is an important (if not THE most important) issue for the Rockies.

Money is not the only resource in baseball that is limited. Draft picks which are high enough to enable a team to select elite North American talent (especially known power arms) are also limited. This selection does not provide good value. Good closers have been drafted much further down in the first round and have been developed internally and have been acquired via trades (Joe Nathan, Fuentes, Francisco Cordero). Power arms with top of the rotation potential are rare but seem to most frequently be found at the top of the first round of the draft.

I have no doubt that Weathers will be a very good player but good closers have been proven to be available via almost every avenue of player acquisition.

Players like Parker, Porcello and Bumgarner (like A. Miller and Tim Lincecum last year) are typically only available at the top of the draft or to the teams with the most astute latin american scouts and programs.

Facing the elite young pitching prospects of the Giants and the Dodgers over the next 5 or 10 years is going to be difficult to swallow knowing that we twice passed on the opportunity to draft similar players ourselves.

by MADness on Jun 7, 2007 4:22 PM MDT reply actions

Dodgers....

I think the Dodgers have influenced this pick.....look at the crazy numbers of bullpen arms that are in the majors or in the upper levels of their system.

I think their bullpen depth contributed to this pick

by sg8335aa on Jun 8, 2007 4:43 AM MDT up reply actions

I wanted to wait until this morning to respond

I was pretty tired yesterday, but I do want to bring up a couple of counterpoints. First, so far you're the only person I've seen or heard who says that Weathers can't become an "elite" closer, and that includes scouts and Baseball America and other media outlets.

You say that good closers are "available via almost every avenue of player acquisition" and while this is true, it's also true of every other position on the diamond as well, including top of the rotation starters. Liriano was acquired via the same trade as Nathan, Santana was a Rule 5 draft pick, Jake Peavy was drafted in the 15th round, Brandon Webb in the 8th. Either one of us can go back and forth with examples here to disprove each other.

What it all comes down to is whether Weathers is a better pick than those three high school guys you mention. How many of them have reached triple digits on the radar gun? None. Porcello and Parker have dialed it up to 98, but Weathers has reached 100. What about movement, though, who's got the best? Which is the most likely of the four to make the majors? Weathers. Who's the most likely to develop a career threatening arm problem in the minors? Parker, with Bumgarner a close second. Who has the best mix of pitches? Porcello, than Weathers, Parker, and Bumgarner just has a fastball, that's it. Who has the highest ceiling? Porcello, Parker's second here, but Weathers is probably closer than you think. Which pitcher has the best command of the strike zone? Weathers. Who's most likely to have control problems in the minors? Bumgarner and Porcello.

In short, Weathers is a stud pitcher equal or better to at least two of those you mention, and a safer bet to be successful than the third. He's only rated lower than the other three at Baseball America because they have always favored the mystery and imagined possibilities of high schoolers to the more developed players. I just think you and a lot of people are automatically selling this pick short without taking a legitimate look at the talent we selected.

by Rox Girl on Jun 8, 2007 5:14 AM MDT up reply actions

Mistaken

Unless I was even more asleep when I posted than I thought, I didn't state or even intentionally imply that Weathers can't be a stud closer.

Disagreeing with the pick is not the same as saying that I don't think that Weathers will be a good player or even that he will not be a great player. I am actually pretty excited about getting to watch him and he definitely offers a different level of performance and potential than Feuntes or our other in house replacement candidates.

Some recent high draft picks of pitchers projected to be late innings pitchers at the top of the draft and the position at which they were drafted:

Ryan Wagner - 14th

Chad Cordero - 20th

Craig Hansen - 26th

Joey Devine - 27th

Huston Street - 40th

by MADness on Jun 8, 2007 3:01 PM MDT up reply actions

I'm sorry,

That was very much my bad, as that was somebody else who said Weathers wouldn't be elite. So please forgive me for the false attribution, I was reading all the posts against the pick and got muddled to who I was responding to.

It's true that Weathers was drafted higher than any of those guys, but apparently he's the guy that the Rockies wanted if Detwiler or Moskos weren't available. I still feel that this pick and all our picks should be judged on the actual talent brought in, and not on their salary demands. In this case, Weathers stacks up well. I feel that our second and third round selections do also, but I think we could have waited three more rounds to draft Froneberger. After that, I'm eager to see what our scouts saw in the players as they have a great track record in rounds 5-12.

by Rox Girl on Jun 8, 2007 4:08 PM MDT up reply actions

No problem

I don't doubt that we got a very good player. My primary concern is that we passed up some players with skill sets that are very difficult to acquire in any fashion other than at the top of the first round of the draft.

I like the selection of Rike. An intelligent, toolsy baseball player with a good baseball make-up (rather than a pure athlete like, say, Choo Freeman) is the type of high reward pick that I would like to see a little bit more of (especially when the price tag isn't as high as it is with a first round pick). Reminds me of the Christiansen pick last year though Rike is far more proven and appears capable of moving much more quickly.

by MADness on Jun 9, 2007 11:30 AM MDT up reply actions

Judging this by a Feuntes trade

Factoring the returns on a potential Feuntes trade into the evaluation of this selection is both foolish and dishonest, IMO.

there is no reason to believe that the Rockies would not have been willing to trade Feuntes had they not drafted a closer in this particular draft class.
The full value of Weathers as the replacement closer should not be regarded as the difference between Feuntes and no closer (or Feuntes and a horrible closer) but as the difference between Feuntes and the current best option for replacing Feuntes (this option most likely being Corpas and not being a bad option at that).
Why does a non-contending team need a quality closer, especially at the expense of future value and future performance? (and if the team IS contending then is throwing in a rookie closer with minimal pro experience really the best solution?)

by MADness on Jun 7, 2007 4:32 PM MDT reply actions