I'm not a fan of selecting high school pitchers in the early rounds, but it's not because of timeframe concerns. I think the data suggests that the attrition rate among prep arms is higher than collegians, and that makes intuitive sense. I also worry about the quality of talent evaluation at such an early age, especially in cases like the Lobster's where he has thrown only 38 innings this season against not-so-good competition. Certainly, the more games a player has under his belt against more predictable, measurable competition, the easier it is to get a grip on his performance and potential performance. I'm not saying that it's impossible to accurately scout high school pitchers. Obviously, that is just not true. Rather, my point is the quality of the data available (and by "data," I include first-hand accounts as well as statistics and health records) decreases the further a player is away from their prime (and by that I mean their late 20s). You can certainly see that a 12-year old pitcher is very good and has lots of potential, but accurately projecting where that individual will be pitching-wise in 10-15 years is nearly impossible. As that same pitcher ages, the accuracy of their "projectability" increases. By the time a pitcher is 18, I think you can get a pretty good grasp of his raw potential. At the same time, I think there necessarily are still a lot of question marks about the pitcher's health, makeup, and performance (including how sustainable said health and performance are). One positive about high school pitchers is that they become the organization's property and we can develop them how and which whom we please. That means no 140-pitch outings by ill-advised college coaches or misguided training programs architected by not-so-bright assistants. If you trust your organization to nurture and develop a young pitcher, then this might appeal to you. Still, there is the risk that even the best development program will be helpless to prevent injuries or ineffectiveness. I think there is a pretty high attrition rate between the ages of 18-22, and I'd much rather gamble on players that have already gotten through that 4-year period healthy and successful. As far as the timeframe issue goes, it's really a non-issue. The player's arbitration clock doesn't start until they are in the major leagues, so it's not like younger players are with us for less time. Intelligent, conservative management of your minor league rosters and promotions is far more important to maximizing your control over a player than is his age. Finally, the argument that one should take "the best available player" is begging the question. The concern I expressed above directly impacts the criteria by which we evaluate a player's "ceiling." I think that, too often, talented but raw high school pitchers are "projected" to a degree that isn't wholly rational. When a pitcher has "some mechanical issues," a "developing breaking ball," and "room to grow into his body," that's a whole lot of variables we are just assuming will go our way. The ability to see a player as he will be in 5-10 years is really difficult, and we are going to be wrong just as many times as we are right. That's why I advocate performance scouting as a pretty important "reality check" on projectability. I wish we would have taken Sowers and Buckner 1-2. Those are two proven, successful, and healthy college pitchers with four more years of experience to evaluate and project. To me, that makes our projections of them more likely to be accurate. I like the Lobster, and he seems to be a very intelligent and cogent young man. I will be a huge fan, and will cheer him on from afar as he joins the organization and progresses toward Milwaukee. I think we all will. But the Brewers did take a pretty big gamble, and they could very easily come up empty. ~Bill