gregmag

Maybe Jack Z. has picked up Doug Melvin's "quantity over (or at least in conjunction with) quality" strategy from the Sexson trade, because it feels like we've drafted about 15 3Bs so far today. Greg.

Use the link Toby just posted . . . it's some of the best baseball writing you'll read on BF.net, which is to say it's some of the best baseball writing you'll read anywhere. Greg.

Toby, you made a very good case against Braun in that debate with (I think) Bill the other day . . . but I still think the logic for taking Braun is probably more sound than the logic, as of draft day, for taking any of our recent first-rounders other than Weeks. A lot of us slagged off Fielder as a one-dimensional slugger with weight issues, and at least a few of us hate HS pitchers on principle. Greg.

"Not much offensively"? He had a career OPS+ of 69, with only one year when he was above average and one other when he was close. Most of the time he was one of the worst hitters in the league. The good Lord has never made the second baseman whose defense makes up for that kind of helplessness with the bat. He's arguably never made any player whose defense compensates for that kind of hitting -- interested parties can debate Mark Belanger (OPS+ 6http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/glasses.gif . Greg.

Someone mentioned this before, but could somebody please post a link to MLB's sortable list of draft-eligible players . . . I think they call it their "draft tracker"? The damn thing is impossible to find. Thanks. Greg.

Right, because Bill Ripken really distinguished himself. Greg.

College LHP Steven Hammond.

Part of me is bummed to hear that the first pitcher we selected who isn't going to break down is projected as a reliever. But how much does that even mean? Is it really possible to write a pitcher out of the rotation on draft day? Just curious what others think. Of course, part of me thinks that drafting pitchers in the upper rounds at all is useless, but I realize I'm weird that way, so I won't press it again. Greg.

RHP -- a college guy, thank God. Greg.

Great. The Inman dossier now includes "some injuries" and signability issues, in addition to a stocky build, a tired arm last summer, delivery issues, and being a freakin' high school RHP to begin with. The sky's the limit for this guy. Greg.

Wow . . . nothing I love more than a HS righthander with delivery issues.http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/eyes.gif Greg.

I don't see this as a classic choice of drafting for need over best player available. Braun was objectively in the range of the Brewers' pick. There are arguments for other guys they could have had, but the only one that really moves me is Maybin. Other guys presented major question marks. I think the folly of drafting for need depends on how far you're reaching. This wasn't much of a reach, if it was a reach at all. Greg.

I feel okay about Braun because Romero, Tulo, and Maybin were all there. Jack Z had a good choice, and he's not famous for making bad ones. I was suspicious of Tulo, and apparently a lot of people were suspicious of Maybin, although I still like his chances. One thing I noticed is that Braun is the oldest of the players selected near the top, so he'll need to move through the system fast. I don't think I'd start him at A+, but I wouldn't be dogmatic about keeping him at one level in each of his first two full seasons. Greg.

How about prorating the award of compensatory picks based on record and/or revenue? If a team with, say, over a .525 winning percentage loses a type A, it gets nothing; .475-.525 gets only a sandwich pick; .475 and below gets sandwich plus the signing team's first rounder. I'm pulling those percentage ranges out of my butt, but figuring out how to slice the pie would be fairly easy. What this boils down to is how much we care about parity. I understand the players' desire not to create a system that creates huge disincentives to signing FAs, but I would love to see a system that gives losing and/or smaller market teams a leg up in the process. Greg.

Maybin. Sometimes the complicated turns out to be simple, and Jack Z loves toolsy high schoolers, plus I still think there's a better-than-decent chance that Weeks ends up at 3B long term. But I'll take Toby's scenario. Greg.

Can somebody remind me why Tulo is exciting? I recall Colby's saying, I think, that his park deflated his power numbers; but I'm sort of stuck on his weak BB/K rate relative to the other college studs. Does his offense project to play at 3B? If not, he seems like a questionable pick, because moving him off SS has to be at least an option. How does he compare as a hitter to Zimmerman and Braun? Greg.

You think maybe Enrique Cruz is back on track after getting thrown off by section 5? You think maybe this is about the time Rickie Weeks never looks back? Jose Capellan! Josh Baker! Khalid . . . um, never mind. Greg.

Random thought from today's Huntsville game and yesterday's Nashville game: pitchers' wins are possibly the stupidest statistic in baseball, arguably worse than even fielding percentage. The WV kids are really going to stink for the first half, aren't they, and then start to warm up to their level in the second half? God, I hope so. Greg.

Well, when the sports editor of the Tahoe Daily Tribune weighs in, you certainly know what a bad organization you are. Honestly, I understand the desire to defend the honor of a hardworking and reasonably talented local product, but that's a bush league story by a bush league writer. The reasons for the Brewers' decision, while not necessarily compelling, are pretty ordinary; to pull out the trusty "oh well, they suck anyway" line smacks of protesting too much. If you really believe that this tender-shouldered soft-tosser is the one in 50 who will have a career, then talk about how he's better than his obvious shortcomings, not about how any idiot team would obviously clear a roster spot for a sore-shouldered soft-tosser. That said, I hope Bruso proves the Brewers made a mistake. Greg.

I'm going to stick to my guns for the moment, because I think this is a really interesting discussion. I do understand that, when you're actually the person who has to make an important decision, dogma looks bad for a lot of good reasons. Flexibility and pragmatism always have a lot to recommend them. But Colby, I can't agree that swearing off most pitchers for the first five or eight rounds would put you at a comparable disadvantage to swearing off college (or HS) players in those rounds. I think the facts support a distinction. If the Brewers had drafted based on the standards I suggested, they could only be better off than they are now, because they would have drafted some potentially useful guys in place of some guys who proved useless. I know the approach I'm suggesting *sounds* dogmatic, but I'm only suggesting it because some pretty cold logic supports it. You may be right to criticize the approach as inflexible, but isn't it possible that the Brewers' recent experience teaches us something true and useful about the risk-benefit analysis for drafting pitchers? Greg.

I think scoop makes a very good point. Think about our young minor league starting pitchers at the upper levels. What rounds were they drafted in? For a more complete snapshot, I'll include our major league starters or potential starters under 30: MLB Capuano (trade; originally 8th round) Davis (minor league F.A.; originally 10th round) de la Rosa (trade; originally Mexican F.A.) Glover (minor league F.A.; originally 15th round) Obermuller (trade; originally 2nd round) Santos (minor league F.A.; originally Dominican F.A.) SHEETS (1st round) AAA Capellan (trade; originally Dominican F.A.) Hendrickson (10th round) Housman (33rd round) Pratt (trade; originally 9th round) AA Ballouli (6th round) Eveland (16th round) [Jones (1st round; injured)] Parra (26th round) [saenz (28th round; injured)] Sarfate (9th round) Woolard (trade; originally 10th round) First of all, this seems like a pretty fair collection of upper-level pitching talent. I don't know the minors well enough to say with authority how it stacks up against other organizations, but all the guys on that list are either major league starters, major league middle relievers with a chance to start, or legitimate minor league starting propsects. So what, exactly, do we have to show for selecting pitching in the upper rounds of the draft? I'll hold off the big obvious answer for last, because I think he's the exception that proves a certain rule. Other than the big obvious answer, the only guys on that list drafted above round 6 are arguably the two least likely ever to be successful major league starters: Wes Obermuller and Mike Jones. Obermuller doesn't even count, because we didn't draft him. After Jones, your next highest draftee is Khalid Ballouli at round 6. After that we're down to round 9, or round 8 if you want to talk about trade acquisition Chris Capuano. The big obvious answer, of course, is Ben Sheets. There's a very good argument, if the question is "Should you draft pitchers at the top of the draft?," that one Ben Sheets erases five years of otherwise futile choices. But I don't buy that argument at that level of generality. Sheets was special on the day he was drafted, in a sense that no other recent Brewers pitching draftee has remotely approached. He was the best college pitcher in the draft, or very nearly the best, with health, upside, and polish. The risk factor in drafting him was as close to zero as it ever gets, and everyone knew it. He spent only one full season in the minors, which surprised no one. So if the question is, "Do you draft a truly special, advanced pitcher in the upper rounds?," the answer is yes. But I don't see any evidence on this list that drafting merely mortal pitchers in the top 5 rounds has done this team any good at all. Have we even gotten any useful trade bait out of upper round pitchers that I'm forgetting? Of course, Rogers, Gallardo, or Wahpehpeh *could* pan out beautifully. But looking at the upper levels right now provides a very useful and realistic basis for evaluation, and what it shows is that the Brewers have amassed solid pitching depth with no contribution (save the obviously exceptional Sheets) from pitching draftees in the top 5 rounds and (with apologies to Brian re: Khalid) virtually no contribution from pitching draftees in the top 8 rounds. Don't these facts warrant some change in strategy? I would be inclined to limit pitching draftees in at least the top 5 rounds to (1) college sure things a la Sheets (who don't come around very often) and (2) the occasional guy who falls, or about whom we've figured out something that other teams haven't. I'd be more liberal in drafts/rounds where position prospects were unusually thin. Beyond that, the Brewers' recent experience suggests that you do better by cleaning up in the middle rounds and acquiring other teams' middle round pitchers with upside in trades. Greg.

Folks who are watching: How does Glover look? What's he throwing? Any observations / descriptions appreciated. Greg.

I just got home, and no way am I reading a 35-page game thread, so I apologize if these things have been said to death: Every one of the starting eight except Jenkins drew at least one walk. Three for Brady and two for Hardy have me especially jazzed. Suspect bullpen: 6 & 2/3 innings of two-hit, shutout ball. Wow! Greg.

I did that thing where I read the JS Online stories late at night, and they say something like, for example, "The minor league affilliates open their seasons tonight," and I wrongly think they mean the "tonight" that I'm still living rather than the "tonight" of the new today. Plus I have to admit I've never loved the fancy link report logo as much as I loved seeing the day's matchups at the top of the thread (yeah, I have a soft spot for text-based video games, too), plus Mass Brew has been possessed by this Mass Haas person. Despite all that, I am consumed with joy. The link report is back! Thanks in advance, Mass. Greg.

And now Miller. I love walks. Greg.