This is going to be a short one because there isn't much to say.
(1) The Indians selected Lonnie Chisenhall in the first round. Most I checked with today think he is a first round talent on talent alone. However a lot of number of guys think that you have to include makeup and, when you do, he is not a first round talent. So you take your pick. Bottom line: the guy can hit and, as a college SS, he may have versatility to play other positions, although being a below average runner limits that somewhat.
(2) In rounds 2-4 they made a series of inexcusable picks. My opinion is that they need to not sign these guys and just get their 2nd and 3rd round picks and save the bonus that our 4th round pick no way deserves.
(3) They picked in up a little in the 5th round picking Zach Putnam, the 50th ranked prospect in the country and Jeremie Tice, a good hitting collegian who was not in the top 200.
On the second day of the draft I look for how risky a team is. The way I gauge that is how many top prospects do they take a shot at, top prospects that, for some reason, have dropped out of the top 5 rounds. Last year, for example, the Indians drafted Cole St. Clair, Matt Hague and Matt Brown, all top 200 prospects, in the 7th-13th round and a couple of other guys with upside, Joey Mahalic and Chris Jones. After that draft John Mirabelli said that he didn't take enough chances on these types of guys later in the draft.
Well, John went us one better this year when he took just ONE BA top 200 player (Glenn House in the 16th round) after the 5th round of the draft when there were LOTS of guys still avialable all the way in rounds in the 40s. House was the 100th best prospect in the US but is considered unsignable. Now, to be fair, a lot of the guys they drafted, maybe more than any other year in my memory, were at least mentioned in BA's state-by-state rankings but NONE of the rest of these guys are really considered top prospects. They are all, at best, flyers, if they even sign, which a lot of our late HS draftees did not last year. Even their senior signs stunk in comparison to other available college seniors and there were lots of good senior signs still available when they drafted some of these other guys.
So, in summary, the Indians today followed a ridiculously bad first day (that may only be saved if Chisenhall can keep his nose clean and can hit with some power and play a prime position (SS, 2B or C) AND Putnam can reach his peak as a pitcher) by taking almost ZERO chances and drafting almost ZERO guys with obvious significant upside on the second day. Not to say these guys don't have SOME upside but when you are selecting guys like the #22 prospect in Kentucky or Nevada it is hard to say that you are a selecting a prime draft pick.
The Indians took as close to ZERO chances the second day of the draft. The good news it won't cost them much money. The bad news is that you get what you pay for and this draft, even more so than the extremely disappointing 2007 draft where they had one of the lowest budgets in the draft, is looking like a real stinker right now.
So, the only questions that remain now are:
(a) Is anyone going to come clean and say that the Indians had a miniscule draft budget this year?
(2) After this draft, the 2007 draft and John Mirabelli's body of pathetic draft work since 2000, how long are Brad Grant and John Mirabelli going to keep their jobs?
Again, I vote NOT to sign our 2nd, 3rd and 4th round picks AT ALL this year. That strategy is the one that best assures us of getting the most out of this draft: Chisenhall and two prime draft picks next year. It may not be a popular view but, in my opinion, it is the best option the Indians have at this point.
This could and probably will go down as one of the worst drafts in Indians' history and I don't say that lightly. Last year at least had the the excuse of no second and third round picks. Unless I miss my guess this year's draft class will be MUCH worse than last year's and THAT is a bad sign for the Indians when you have two unproductive drafts two years in a row.
In my website article later this weekend I will give an alternate draft list that I came up with, a lot before the draft but a lot as the draft was going along. Until then, thanks for reading.
Friday, June 6, 2008
Post draft review
Everything on this site is free, but for those interested in making any monetary contributions to help support the stability and growth of this site please click on the "Donate" button below.
6 comments:
Dennis, did you actually see the Indians 2nd, 3rd and 4th picks play within the last year? I have seen them all play and I think you are all wet in your comments about them. Haley may have a huge upside. Signability could be an issue but he is high risk, high reward. Phelps could be a big help if he can stay at 2B. He actually looked quite good but he does not have Cabrera's range. The lad from Long Beach can bring it, make no mistake. He could rise quickly, if healthy. Loved the #5 pick, whom I have also seen. You are entitled to your opinion, just as I am entitled to mine. However, if you have not actually seen a player, I question the authority as a "draft Guru".
To Indiansinkslinger:
Thanks for your opinion. I would like to know who you are and your background. You could e-mail me at dnosco@hotmail.com. Regardng your comments, Phelps, based on his talent, would have been available in rounds 7-10 and Roberts would have been available in rounds 10-20 and, if they had not, who cares because an equal prospect would have been available. Your comments indicate that Phelps and Roberts were draftable. I agree, as I said above. The questions you should ask yourself are whether they were even close to the best player available at the slot they were drafted at AND the likelihood that they would be available much later in the draft. It is that perspective that is important. If you have seen so many players you must know that Brandon Crawford and many others >>>>> Roberts and that Tim Melville is >>>>> Phelps. As a matter of fact, Josh Satin from California, who I have seen a few times, appears to be >>>>>> Phelps.
BTW, I never said I was a draft guru, it is a bunch of people who read my stuff.
As far as the #5 pick, how can you love that one and not hate the #2, 3 and 4? Putnam will be a tough sign and all that I have read said scouts (and obviously other teams since they didn't draft him based on his talent level) don't like him.
Hi Dennis,
I have to pack for NY but I will try and send you a personal note when I get there. My opinion is this is an upside draft for the Indians which is what I think they have done since 2006. Prior to that they chose for consistency rather than upside. Philosophy has been changed as team has been rebuilt and they can absorb the risk. Cleveland's 2006 draft may be one of the great drafts. They took lots of projectable risk and the payoff could be huge.
As I mentioned in an earlier post, I liked Gilaspie. I do not have a problem with their #1 pick, however. I think he has defensive upside over Gilaspie and projects for power. He has risk but that is where the Indians are now. Although I believe the Indians probably have done due diligence on Haley, I think he will be a tough sign. Phelps is a late blossom who could be a steal if he stays at 2B and continues to project on power. If he has to move to 3B, you are closer to right in your assessment. If you had seen Roberts, you might understand that he "might" be ML closer material. Again, this is a risk/reward pick.
Money is not an issue, Dennis. Give me a break. The Tribe regularly goes over slot and this draft will be no exception. I expect flops from this draft since the goal is high end prospects who have risk.
Gotta go! Wife is yelling at me!
Hig end prospects? All these guys were lowly rated by BA. While you can rightly say BA doesn't have it right EXACTLY, a guy who is the 4th relieve on his college team who isn't among the top 170+ prospects in his own state is hardly a 4th round pick.
Again, my premise is that these guys rated to be much later prospects. YOU are arguing that they could be good prospects down the road. Sure, but EVERY prospect is like that.
Regarding budget, according to BA their draft budget last year was $2.3 million. That was the 3rd lowest in baseball for 2007.
Ah, come on Dennis. You aren't really going to play the BA card, pretending it is some fountain of wisdom. BA is never really relevant and after the first dozen picks, they make nice reading and chat material.
To give you an idea how in depth they are, I have never seen a BA staffer at the AFLAC game. At last years game, I knew with almost 100% certainty who the #1 pick would be. BA did not have a clue. I don't mean to say they are worthless but as evaluators of talent, which they are unlikely to have seen, they are somewhere close to useless at the HS level. They go by word of mouth and rely on scouts who will talk with them but have agendas.
Did it ever occur to you that the reason the indians spent less on their draft budget in 2007 was because they had fewer top picks than other teams. That and they were really fortunate to get Mills for slot money. Another factor was that they offered St Clair third round money which he turned down. They were lucky there, I guess. If you read BA as a quasi-bible, then you know they went over slot in several picks.
Dennis, you are going to have to do better if you want to convince me. Recycling BA just won't do it. I am a fan of Sickels when it comes to the draft. Tony is better on the indians than either BA and John. No other publication is in the same class as those three and I make BA the weakest.
I also notice that you let my challenge on the 2006 draft slip by. I seem to recall you having similar comments on that draft to those you have expressed on this one but I am an old man whose memory is fading.
I will send you a note later. Heading to a soccer match.
First, Tony ought to be better than any publication. He lives it whereas there is no other person on earth who does for the Indians minor leagues what he does and, though I love the guy, he doesn't even have a great perspective sometimes. Great guy, great worket, great writer and best Indians' minor league reporter in the business, but mainly because he spends so much more time at it than anyone else. The person who spend the most time on a subject is usually the most knowledgeable.
Now, regarding BA, please. They have about a dozen people working full time on the draft, have insides to a number of scouts, almost infinitely more than anyone else. They are the undisputed best at what they done because they have the experience and they put in the work. It is only people who want fans to believe that a draft like this wasn't a disaster and that the 73rd best player in California is really a good pick at the 107th pick in the draft that want to diss BA. Please, they know more about the draft than any individual scout and certainly more than anyone less than a scout.
Hey, they are not infallible. BA cannot tell predict whether Connor Gillaspie, Brett DeVall, Jake Odorizzi or Tim Melville or maybe even Lonnie Chisenhall will turn out to have the best career, given that John Manuel told me that it was him who pushed for Chisenhall to be lower than his talent would indicate he should be, which was probaby sandwich level. So, they can't make the fine calls. Who can? And they don't have to be at an all-star game. Scouts and the organizations feed BA enough information on satelite events like that and don't think that BA doesn't incorporate that information into their analysis because, in my opinion, they incorporate it a little too much.
You certainly won't reveal who you really are so, until you do, I am done with this conversation. Your username gives significant clues and if it is who I think you are, why even bother. Get someone else to drink the koolaid, 'cause it ain't going to be me.
Post a Comment