colbyjack

I don't think anyone was attacking JP for the Blue Jays nose dive this season. However, can you simply say he's done a good job & that his players, especially the pitchers, have failed him? If you liked Dean Taylor enough, you could probably spin an argument that he did fine as GM and that it was the players that failed him. How long has JP been with Toronto now? I realize, as Bill pointed out, that when he took the job it was more about the future than about the present, but if they continue to struggle next year at what point do you keep making excuses for the job that JP has done in Toronto? As we've pointed out before, most of the talent in Toronto currently is courtesy of Gord Ash & even Pat Gillick. And I'd like to point out that just because someone embraces a popular philosophy doesn't make him good.

Wow. What a great game, against the bothersome Pirates no less. It feels good to win a series again! Nice to see the offense show some life today.

Aren't the Braves playing something like .700+ ball over the last 2+ weeks? Their turnaround has been amazing, and it seems as though for the past 3-4 years people say that this will be the year that the Braves finally fall. Once again, not this year. One thing that stuck out to me when compiling the standings was the New York Mets. They're one of the worst teams in baseball, even if they're not that far below .500, and yet they dealt prospects for a couple of big-league pitchers. As Bill & others noted on the MLB forum, they're idiots. And while the Mariners slide has been well documented, no one seems to be talking about the Blue Jays' struggles this season. I know they're playing in a tough division, but I think most expected them to be more competetive than what they have been this year. At least not in dead last.

Draft order for 2005, through games played on 7/31/04: 1. D-Backs-.311 2. Royals.-353 3. Mariners-.379 4. Expos-.394 5. Blue Jays-.437 6. Rockies-.442 7. Orioles-.451 8. Mets-.476 9. D-Rays-.476 10. Pirates-.480 11. Tigers-.481 12. Brewers-.485 13. Reds-.490 14. Astros-.500 15. Marlins-.500 16. Indians-.510 17. Phillies-.510 18. White Sox-.518 19. Angels-.538 20. Giants.538 21. Cubs-.538 22. Red Sox-.549 23. Braves-.553 24. Padres-.558 25. Rangers-.559 26. Twins-.563 27. A's-.563 28. Dodgers-.583 29. Yankees-.631 30. Cardinals-.641

Does it really make a difference whether you draft guys like Brenden Murray and Jeff Garner in rounds 30-40, or wait to sign them until after the draft? This is a great point by Toby, and throw in Stanczyk as well. I have no problem with signing undrafted free agents, and I don't think any number is really unusually high, unless half the team is fielded with undrafted free agents. And I don't worry too much about the number of draftees we've actually signed. Like I said above, we still retain the rights to most of these players. Secondly, we signed our first 11 picks, and that to me is what is truly important. Those 11 picks take up probably 80-90%, if not more, of your draft signing budget anyway, so I'm not too concerned about the ones that will get away, because we're just not going to have that. If they didn't sign several of their top 10 picks for whatever reason then I think there would be reason for concern. If they went the extreme budget route with a bunch of their top 10 picks like the Royals did last year with their 6th-10th rounders in which they spent $5,000 on each one, that would be another reason to question the budget. And for all we know, maybe they are still planning to sign 1-2 of their remaining draftees. Prettyman and/or Josh Brady could still get inked, as could one of the more promising HS arms like Pryor, Bowman & Morgan.

The Brewers already are using Canadian summer leagues trying to develop their draftees. I forget which pitcher, but MassBrew has pointed out that one of our recent draftees is playing for some summer league north of the border. I believe 1-2 of the other ones (Periard maybe), are playing for Canada's Junior National Team. That can actually an even better route, because like the entire DFE process, the Brewers don't have to pay for those team's nor player's expenses, yet they have a pretty active role in persuading those teams as to how those players should be used. I think it would be really hard to have our own Canadian summer league because all Canadians are subject to the draft. It's the same reason you don't see any Puerto Rican leagues. You may have academies run by independent coaches & scouts, but not individual organizational teams. Dominican & Venezuelan teams & leagues are a plenty because you can sign a ton of players for next to nothing to field a roster & not worry about losing draft picks even when signing roster fillers. To field a Canadian team you would have to draft about 25 Canadian players. I'm sure you could fill in the gaps with some free agents & the like, but considering the Brewers took the most Canadians out of any team at 7, that's a lot of roster spots to fill. It's an interesting idea, but the logistics just don't make it that realistic of a task. Who knows, maybe we could start sending some of our Latin American signees there to even things out. Are there any visa issues from going from the DR or VEN to Canada, or are they strictly USA visa issues? I'm guessing it's a USA issue, which may make it a creative way to develop talent. But if that's the case, why not just keep the DR academy open & send our Canadian draftees down there? Now, the Brewers could host a team similar to the Area Code Games which could tie into the academy idea listed above, and for all I know given Team Canada and all of their Canadian scouts, they already do. Those players wouldn't be officially affiliated with the organization, but like our Area Code Game scouts/coaches, no one gets a closer look at the players than them. Actually, something like this is already in place, since I know most of our Canadian scouts are former & current coaches given their part-time status, and no one gets a closer look at the players than the coaches themselves. And speaking of the Area Code Games, I checked out their site the other day & the Brewers not only are covering all of California, but they're also hosting the kids from Nevada & Hawaii as well. Another instance in which the organization is expanding it's scouting horizons.

Here is what the Brewers have spent on their top 10 picks since Jack Z. has took over: 2000: $3,615,000 (no 2nd rounder) 2001: $4,517,600 (the best Brewers draft under Jack Z.) 2002: $4,350,500 (add in Parra & you have $5,900,500, but Parra's bonus might be best split between '01 & '02) 2003: $6,052,500 (as pointed out, Weeks' huge contract makes this a unique year, not the norm) 2004: $4,307,000 (bonuses are down across the board, a similar effort to 2001, and they still might not be done) If I have a quarrel with anything, it's the signing of Latin players. Ever since they shut down the Latin American academies we were told that they would spend more on quality than quantity, and while I can't prove they're not doing that, it would be nice to be thrown a bone once in a while about players that actually might be worth getting excited about. I don't expect Tom Haudricourt to provide this info, but Adam McCalvy has always been good about providing info that we normally don't have access to. Of course, visa troubles effect those players as well, and Hurricane Hernan doesn't really count since he has been in the system for a few years now. Plus, the Brewers don't go out of their way to hype young players at the lower rungs of their system like the Braves, Yankees & Dodgers do.

Moreno's dedication to winning definately did help. Brewer ownership didn't even give Melvin a full draft budget this year, which is why they've signed so few players and going the draft and follow route. The hope is new ownership will be in place by next spring, and scouting staff would have a full budget to sign a dozen or so DFEs. So few players? They've signed their top 11 picks, and 14 of their top 20, with 5 of those remaining top 20 unsigned selections being likely DFE candidates (Josh Brady being the sole exception). I respect your opinions X, but is that speculation or fact? It sounds like you know something we don't. From the looks of it, the Brewers still had their usual draft budget, they just planned differently since they didn't own the 2nd overall pick. As the draft signings point out, it's not like they went for a bunch of easy signs after their first rounders. They signed most to all of their top 10 picks for slot value, with the exception of Sollmann, who is still a solid player that could have value as a utility man some day. I don't think they're counting on new ownership to have a bigger budget. Signing all of the Canadians in my mind is not just a way to delay signing players. IMO, it's another way to take advantage of a unique situation given the visa troubles & therefore teams' reluctance in drafting Canadians. Not only do they have their usual array of DFEs plus the Canadian group, but they also have a couple of college guys that were injured, and fall under the same category that Jared Theodorakos did this past year. I call that doing your homework. As I pointed out in the thread at the top of this forum, Weeks doesn't count in last year's draft IMO budget-wise. It was unrealistic to think that the Brewers would spend the same kind of money this year as they did last. This year's bonuses without looking likely adds up to what they did in 2000-2002, and they have been anything but cheap since they rededicated the franchise to player development when Dean Taylor took over. On top of that, we may not have as many draft signees numbers-wise, but I think that has more to do with design than by default. Look at the lower levels of the minor leagues. Both Helena & Arizona are pretty stocked with players. It's arguable how much talent is there, but still, there are a lot of players at those 2 levels that the Brewers like. Instead of creating logjams with 2nd day picks at those levels I believe the organization was intentionally trying to take more DFE candidates in attempt to weed out the talent so to speak via the DFE process. I don't think I'm wearing rose-colored glasses in making that statement because to me there is an obvious systematic plan that was executed not only this year, but almost every year since Jack Z. has taken over.

Thanks for pointing out the updated database MB, I've been waiting for that. I've wanted to see if there is any hope to sign one of our remaining picks that we nabbed later, like Bowman, Morgan & Pryor. Last year it took $6,052,500 to sign our top 10 picks. This year it took $4,307,000. Of course, the biggest difference is Rickie Weeks $3.6 million dollar bonus, which was tied to a big league deal that will earn him much more than that. That big league deal allows the Brewers to spread that money out more, and they also likely budgeted appropriately for having the 2nd pick not only in the first round, but every round. So, I'll subtract both Weeks & Rogers from the equation & just figure out picks 2-10. Last year it cost $2,452,500, this year, $2,107,000. Of course the difference of our slot in each round has something to do with that, and MLB wasn't shy about pushing teams to bring down bonuses yet again this year. That probably shows the most with Gallardo, who signed for $50k less than the 5th pick in the 2nd round last year, and Wahpepah, as the going rate for a high 3rd rounder in '03 was $500k. As MB pointed out, we already know that LeClercq signed for $100k +, but I'm guessing a guy like Tommy Hawk also got a little (possibly a lot) more than slot value last year. It's hard to get info on players past the 10th round since BA doesn't provide those figures. I don't see many of our other later rounds picks making that much of a difference from last year's. Plenty of college players that likely only received several hundred dollars, possibly thousands, to sign. So, this team may have a little left in the reserve to make a late run on one of the pitchers listed above. I'm still not counting on it, and if there is a little gas left in the tank for all I know they may plan on rolling over some of that money over to their DFE budget for next spring given all of the Canadian draftees & DFE candidates overall. Before the spring I predicted they might take a shot at someone like Bowman (not him specifically) since they could point to a signing like that as them using their revenue sharing money. With the contract extensions of Podsednik, Davis & even Jenkins, I think the organization has a few players to point to now as an example of how they're supposedly using that money. And it's always silly to expect the Brewers to spend more money, but at least they're never cheap when it comes to the draft. I'm sure we'll see at least one more signee from this draft, as Jack Z. has always added a player in mid to late August, but it may not be one of the players we're hoping for, although there aren't too many other candidates (Josh Brady?).

It is great to see Jorge have that kind of start this evening. A big turnaround from him this season would shed a light on an otherwise turbulent season for so many of our top prospects. Krynzel on base 3 times, Hart does the same, with a couple of walks. However, similar to my disappointment in Gwynn's BB:K ratio this year, what happened to Krynzel's ability to steal bases? I know he needed to improve his efficiency, but he has been really down in that dep't. all season long. As MB would quickly point out, the Snappers go walkless yet again. Too bad the Helena squad couldn't take advantage of the possibility of clinching a playoff spot in the first half. Justin Barnes with his worst start of the season from what I've seen, although he didn't hand out the free passes, which is always good. Both Gwynn's & Weeks' HRs were against talented Cubs' prospect Bobby Brownlie. Nice to see them both with good games.

Thanks Bill.

Edit: I wonder if the Angels paid the tab on the TJ surgery? I thought of this as well. Isn't Lewis Yocum or one of those doctors you see attached to every arm surgery affiliated with the Angels or one of those SoCal teams? I'm pretty sure he at least is located somewhere in that area. I'm not sure if that helps or not, but like I said, it did come to mind. And picking up the tab for the surgery certainly would have helped the negotiations.

I know the Helena box score hasn't been posted yet, but when scanning the stats for all of our minor leaguers I noticed Hasan Rasheed is sitting on 18 games & 61 ABs. I checked the last few link reports & didn't see his name in the box, so I went back in the transactions thread & didn't see his name listed there either. I know there is somewhat of a roster crunch in Helena regarding their OF, but I doubt they would sit a player that was hitting .344/.459/.492, basically picking up where he left off after a great season at Lake City CC. I'm guessing this is one of those unreported injury situations, but I'd appreciate any info on him if someone knows more than I do, or if I just missed something that has been shared about him over the last several weeks. Thanks in advance. ***I just checked Helena's box score, and still no sign of Rasheed. I did see that Edwin Walker logged a couple of innings today, as it's good to see his name in the box score again (wasn't he injured briefly?). Wooley with a good game as the Brewers win, Festa with another couple of walks, the man is a walking machine. Steve Sollmann's numbers continue to slide a little bit.

www.baseballamerica.com/t...nhart.html $710,000 for a 14th rounder. Most, including myself, figured Adenhart was a lock to attend UNC after injuring his arm, having TJ surgery & then falling in the draft. Adenhart also might have looked at UNC's current rotation (Daniel Bard & Andrew Miller) & their incoming recruiting class (Andy Gale, Mike Rozier) and decided that entering pro ball now was the best move. Of course, the money doesn't hurt. A JC wouldn't have done him any good as a potential DFE since he'll likely miss all of next spring. The Angels still have a couple of more tough signs in Jered Weaver & Mark Trumbo. If they deal guys like Santana, Mathis & McPherson for a playoff push, aggressive drafting like this may help re-stock their already strong system.

What is the state of the affiliation agreement between Indy and Milwaukee? Because they sure aint gonna be happy campers down there. Over the years I get the feeling they would much rather be a Yankee affiliate, and play with a bunch of older guys, and pick up titles. It's not a good relationship from what we've heard. The Indians were complaining last year and again this spring, and their recent & consistent tumble obviously can't help things. The contract expires after this year, and you have to believe the Brewers might just have a new AAA affiliate next year, unless the Indians are enamored with the idea of Hardy, Weeks, Nelson & Fielder at AAA for next year. On the flip side, that might be more than enough to keep them around for another year. If I were the Indians signing the contract, I would be awfully hard-pressed not to sign that deal, even if 2006 looked bleak.

Big lefty Dana Eveland -- wow... Eveland has been consistent all year long, and while I haven't seen him pitch, it's been a pleasure to watch the box scores this season. By innings pitched alone, this has got to be his most impressive performance. How many bad outings has he had this season? 2, maybe 3? Props and a tip of my cap to Dana & his family (you know who you are http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/smile.gif ).

Had some rare time to browse some summer stats, so I thought I would share some of the exploits of some players that may be familiar to those that have followed this forum. Ryan Zink, UIC Zink was a 47th round draft pick by the Brewers in 2003. No one expected him to sign, and he had a successful year at UIC serving as the Flames' closer. With guys like Dave Haehnel moving onto pro ball, Zink will likely find a spot in the rotation his sophomore season. He's currently pitching quite well for the Madison Mallards: 4-3, 1.97 ERA, 8 games, all starts, 3 complete games, 59.1 IP, 37 H, 62 K, 13 BB Zink's name may appear on BA's Northwoods League top prospect list based on his numbers alone. And speaking of the Mallards, be sure to check out their website. Their GM has gained a lot of respect for his creative marketing & promotions. www.mallardsbaseball.com/2004/ The Brewers 43rd round selection from the '03 draft, Daryl Maday, now with Arkansas, is also pitching for the Mallards: 1-1, 5.96 ERA, 4 games, all starts, 22.2 IP, 23 H, 20 K, 6 BB Pitching for the La Crosse Loggers are UWM's Ben Stanczyk & Evansville's Cal Stanke (from Menasha). Stanczyk: 5-3, 1.83 ERA, 9/9, 64 IP, 59 H, 77 K, 11 BB He's also hitting for the Loggers, as he does at UWM as a 3B: .264/.336/.330 in 106 ABs Stanczyk is a favorite of BA's John Manuel, who wrote a very nice piece on him shortly after the draft. Stancyk was one of the top prospects in the Northwoods League last year, and may find his name on that list yet again this year. Stanke: 2-3, 4.56 ERA, 8/8, 47.1 IP, 30 H, 28 K, 20 BB Ryan Rohlinger: Rohlinger had a huge freshman year at Clarendon College before transferring to Oklahoma. He's now playing SS, and a little 2B & 3B, for Yarmouth-Dennis in the Cape League: .262/.330/.301 in 103 ABs Hitters tend to struggle more than pitchers in summer college wood bat leagues, largely because of the wood bats. Feel free to add more, I know I recognized a few more players with Wisconsin ties on the rosters that I scanned. And no offense to EDR for not listing players from the great, great Northwest, as I do appreciate the Alaskan League http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/smile.gif .

One factor that may skew the data, however, is the tendency of teams not to push HS pitchers in their initial seasons. Not necessarily true. It all depends on the organization. Look at the Dodgers rapidly promoting Greg Miller last year, or the Royals bumping up Zack Greinke to the big leagues within 2 years of being drafted. Of course these guys may be the exception more than the rule, but not all organizations promote or handle college arms any differently than HS ones. The Brewers are actually handling several of their recently drafted college pitchers with care this summer, and they did the same last year, which I'm happy to see. Of course, I haven't looked at other organizations to see how they're handling their pitchers, but I'm guessing the Brewers aren't alone in this approach. Another thing to add to the equation is that college pitchers do get a lot of work in their college careers as Kat brought up. But this often leads to them signing later in the summer, and possibly not even throwing until the spring after they were drafted. We're seeing a heck of a lot of first rounders unsigned this year, several of them being college arms, so that too could play into all of this. Of course, some HS arms sign late as well, such as our very own Tom Wilhelmsen, or an even better example since he has made the big leagues now, Ben Hendrickson. I know I'm not the only one that was surprised to see Wilhelmsen start his first pro year at Beloit, and now with guys like Rogers starting at Arizona as opposed to Helena, which is where Mike Jones started his career (only to be named the top prospect in the Pioneer League that season), I think it's another good sign that the Brewers are starting to be more cautious & patient with all of their pitchers. And the woulda/coulda/shoulda scenarios are fun to think about. What if Mark Prior wouldn't have gone to college and what if Nick Neugebauer would have? What if Alan Horne would have signed with the Indians out of HS instead of missing several years of action at Ole Miss due to injury? I agree with your assessment greg that Callis' study isn't exact, but like you said, he is on the right track. I probably would expand the results to the age of 25 as you suggest and see where they stand. I wouldn't expect a dramatic difference, since the basic numbers that he provides show that first-round prep righties are just about as likely to be a big-league regular as a first-round college righty (30% vs. 31%), and you can't really be considered a regular, or average/above average, if you're injured all of the time. This gets back to that argument you had with the Mets fan before the draft, but I guess I'm just dubious about taking a HS guy who throws 97 over a college guy who throws 92 but has more polish. If you remember that debate, you'll know most of me agrees with you, but I still have a part of me that loves the idea of striking gold with a true fireballer. Of course I've been suckered by Gold, Neugie & Jones before. If Rogers stings me as well I may have to finally & completely give up that part of me. And everyone knows who I wanted the Brewers to take, for so many different reasons. I can't say I'm disappointed with the pick of Rogers, although taking 2 prep righties with their first 2 picks does concern me. I don't think the same analysis applies to hitters, although I have to confess I haven't worked that view out in my mind. I guess I just don't think hitting is as complex, and thus unpredictable, as pitching. Oddly enough, hitters are harder to scout. Pitchers are always throwing, but a hitter may never move the bat off of his shoulder in any given game. But, the best hitters typically are identified and known about early. This had me leaning towards a bat as the spring progressed given all of the questions about all of the college arms that seemed to good to pass up before the season started (Weaver's lack of a 2nd dominant pitch, Verlander's control problems, Niemann's injury troubles, Townsend's loss of velocity, Sowers' lack of velocity, etc.). I suggested reaching for someone like Blake DeWitt, who not only was considered one of the best hitters in the draft, but he also would have fit an obvious organizational need at 3B. DeWitt went in the 20s to the Dodgers, so he may have been considered a big reach, and of course, most teams, especially the Brewers, don't draft this way (for the most part, they will target needs, but they won't pick them one by one as they go). Chris Nelson on the other hand wouldn't have been a stretch at all, and for the 2nd year in a row the Rockies got one of the my favorite players in the draft (Ian Stewart a year ago). I know there were quite a few Nelson fans on this board and felt the same way about the uncertainty of the pitchers available, which may confirm the Brewers' conviction in drafting a pitcher this year no matter what. That's not to say there aren't positional prospects that become first-round busts, look no further than Antone Williamson, Kenny Felder & Chad Green. Although it could easily be argued that none of those players should have been our first-round pick even at the time. Scott Moore was supposed to have the sweetest swing of all hitters in 2002, and he hasn't done much to justify the 8th overall selection 2 years ago. But with risk involved, and with lingering questions about pitchers, I tend to lean towards a positional prospect that has shown the ability to hit against the best of them on all levels & venues available to prep hitters. I suppose the same could be true in HS -- does anyone have insights about whether HS or college coaches are relatively more careful with pitchers? There isn't really a difference. We've all heard about how Kenny Baugh threw 170 pitches in a game while at Rice, while our own Yovanni Gallardo threw something like 140 pitches in HS this spring. Some coaches take the whole pitch count phenomena more seriously than others at both levels.

Man, that's exciting. Rogers keeps mowing 'em down. I'm also glad the Brewers are taking it nice & easy with the young man, which reflects their entire approach with their pitchers this year. A few years ago, the previous regime likely would have started Rogers at Helena, while Saenz & Jones might have been pushed to pitch through arm injuries.

If injuries do go down after the age of 25, then yes, I would agree that the data isn't entirely accurate. If that is indeed true, the best way to look at it might be looking at a HS pitcher's injury rate 7-8 years after being drafted as opposed to the 5 years for a college draftee. Even without that data, I still am somewhat surprised by just how close those percentages are. I think it would be hard for anyone to say after looking at that data that prep pitchers are still as risky as how many make it out to be. On the "pick the best player available" point . . . how do you compare? How do you determine whether an 18 year-old Maine HS pitcher is "better" than a 20 year-old D1 college pitcher? Do you go purely on visual assessment of stuff? Is there a good way to factor in strength of competition, unpredictability of physical development, etc.? Are some attributes of good players comparable across contexts and others not? The "best player available" logic always has a lot to recommend it, but in this context I wonder whether there's any such thing, at least measurably. Any thoughts? This is where scouts & tools come in. The Brewers obviously thought high enough of Mark Rogers to take him before Homer Bailey, whom most had tabbed as the best prep pitcher. It's for a similar reason that the Tigers took Justin Verlander 2nd overall despite his control problems. His stuff was just too good to pass up, even if a more polished righty like Phillip Humber was on the board. Pure stuff usually lends itself pretty well to the best player available approach. Obviously there are other variables, but if you have a prep pitcher that can throw in the mid-90s with a nasty breaking ball matched up with a college pitcher that throws in the low-90s & relies more on command than stuff, the best player available would likely be the prep pitcher. If the stuff is close, it still would be hard not to give the nod to the college arm. Like all prospect rankings, so much of it is based on potential. Of course everyone has their own idea of who the best player available is, but using the term loosely it's usually the player that projects the best down the road. That's why Rogers got the nod over more established college pitchers like Jeremy Sowers & Wade Townsend. I'm still not sure if I agree with the selection, because if they were looking for pure stuff they had to give Thomas Diamond a long look, who maintains his mid-90s velocity deep into games, although Diamond doesn't have the consistent breaking ball that Rogers & others have. For hitters so much of it has to do with pure athleticism. I'm not as big of a fan going after the raw athlete, as I would much prefer going after the guy that has shown he can hit. While I wasn't a big fan of the selection of Fielder at the time, it's hard not to love that pick now, especially since the Brewers didn't get wrapped up with his perceived conditioning problems. For the same reason I really liked Blake DeWitt this year and Ian Stewart last year because I think those guys have the best chance to hit at the MLB level, even if they don't sport the flashy tools.

We don't really have a clue, though, and for that reason I'll defer to the organization's analysis. That's exactly why I'm saying that it's hard for us to project anyone not playing SS right now to be able to play SS. If the club had any inkling that Sollmann or Lewis could play SS I'm sure they would already be there. Both Counsell & Loretta played SS in the minors, so it's not as great of a stretch thinking about them playing there in the majors. At the lower levels of the chain, if Sollmann & Lewis are not playing there now that is a huge sign to me that they are not as versatile as we would like them to be.

The thing is, guys like Sollmann and Lewis (unlike Belliard) project as utility players, so they had better learn something else other than second base, so I really don't see the harm in trying this for awhile in rookie ball. I agree 100% that Sollmann & Lewis project as utility players, and that they don't compare favorably to Ron Belliard in the same regard. However, if Sollmann & Lewis could play SS, they would already be there. Sollmann could have easily slid over to SS when Matt Macri moved to 3B, and I'm sure no one was preventing Lewis from playing SS at TCU. While added versatility would definitely add value to both players, unfortunately it seems as though there is good reason why neither are tried at the most demanding position on the field. Of course, Craig Counsell is the Brewers' big league SS, but he played SS at Notre Dame. It's similar to why Brad Nelson was moved away from 3B upon being drafted by the Brewers, some players simply don't project well to play certain positions, and I'm sure there are plenty of good reasons why Lewis & Sollmann aren't playing SS.

Seriously, promote Iribarren, yah? Flipflop him and Escobar, and move Sollmann to short. If Sollman could play SS he would already be there, and he would have played there in college. It's just like the speculation of Will Lewis playing SS, which goes back to people wondering if Ronnie Belliard could play SS. There's a reason all of them are playing 2B.

One thing that I've thought about before is this: what if an MLB team made pre-draft deals in the vein of Moneyball, only they exclusively took mid-20th round picks and signed them for very minimal contracts (or didn't sign them at all), instead opting to invest that money in the Major League club? Could a franchise survive for a long period of time relying exclusively on trades and free agents to stock their minor league system? Could the added payroll at the MLB level make a difference in improving the team? Look no further than the Mariners. While that statement is said half in jest, some teams don't take the draft as seriously, or at least invest in it as much, as teams like the Brewers are now. The Mariners are the most obvious example, the Giants are another. Both aren't shy about giving up draft picks by quickly signing players like Michael Tucker & Raul Ibanez on the FA market, and we all wonder why they gave up high picks to sign marginal players like that. Of course, if they're spending money on players like Ibanez & Tucker instead of a top draft pick, you do have to question their rationale, but basically they roll the dollars they would normally spend on the draft into their big-league payroll. And one should not underestimate this tactic too much since both teams take their bench very seriously, especially since few teams travel farther than the Mariners & Giants (actually, no team travels farther than the M's). I'm pretty sure you can sign an entire draft class for somewhere in the $8-10 million range. You can save at least $2-3 million by ridding yourself of your first 2 picks, or low-balling them. That money doesn't seem like much, but I supposed that's the difference from having Michael Tucker on your team or not. And look at the Giants & Mariners farm system. The Giants' has started to thin out, while the Mariners is starting to revive, thanks to some key Latin American players making great strides this year, with more thanks to the Garcia trade. In that way, the Mariners aren't really just rolling their money into their big-league budget, as they always have been big spenders on the international market. Take away both high draft picks & premium players from the foreign market & it would be really tough to stay competetive long-term. Even the Yankees need some key prospects to trade for all of the proven All-Stars they have, which is why so many people are wondering how the heck they are going to be able to trade for Randy Johnson. Dioner Navarro won't be enough. Once again the A's really do things well in that they draft players, hype them up (or have others hype them up for you, not to say that they have overrated players), and then deal those prospects for big leaguers that can help for a playoff push. Octavio Dotel is their most recent acquistion, thanks to Moneyball draftee, and favorite of Robert, Mark Teahen. Jack Z., Doug Melvin & even Dean Taylor have all said that draft day is the biggest day of the year, especially for them given the situation the Brewers are in. In my mind, it's just as important for a team like the Yankees, even if they end up dealing those players in 2-3 years, as it is for the Brewers, who are relying on those picks to become key cogs for the future. Looking at the Mariners who got awfully old awfully fast, it's hard not to put a good chunk of the blame on their reluctance to invest in draft picks.

And all of them suffer from small samples, simply because of the nature of what they're studying, successful major league pitchers during the modern baseball era. Nefaste, interesting analysis overall. I agree that it's impossible to just come up with lists & just come to a simple conclusion, but that's basically why there are so many people that think high school pitchers, particularly right-handers, are so risky. And as I pointed out above, taking analysis from 1990-97 is much more accurate than Bill James' early studies which was from when the draft started in 1965 and went through the late 80s or early 90s. As Jim Callis points out, the draft as we know it today, without any supplemental drafts throughout the year, started in '87 IIRC, and as both he & I pointed out, you didn't see the big bonus rush until the early 90s, which is something you also touched on. You are right, more & more HS players are being taken earlier, and I always find it interesting that more & more HS players are throwing in the 90s these days. Not just the low-90s, but the mid-90s. These young men are getting bigger & stronger at younger ages, attending pitching camps, building up their arm strength & doing things most of us never thought about as high schoolers. As far as the HS vs. College debate goes, I've come to the conclusion that it should probably be used only as a tie-breaker in the individual analysis of prospects. That is, each prospect should be evaluated individually, as I very much doubt that not going to college makes a man more injury prone, or makes it nigh impossible to become a relief pitcher. I agree 100% emunney, and this goes back to the idea of taking the best player available. I don't think being a college player should vault you up considerably when better pure players talent-wise are available on the board, and Jack Z. has clearly operated this way in his tenure as our SD. When things are even, as you stated, I fully believe that you should go with the safer risk. My belief is quite simple on this matter: College pitchers are less likely to get hurt from 18-21...because those years are already past. If they got hurt, they've recovered and pitched well, or you woukldn't be drafting them. I just want to point out this again: How about injuries? 23 (46%) of the college RHPs had elbow or shoulder surgery within 5 years of being drafted 18 (51%) of the HS RHPs had elbow or shoulder surgery within 5 years of being drafted I too believe the ages of 18-21 are very critical for any young arm, but as the numbers prove, you really aren't going to get any more of a safe player injury-wise from the college ranks than you are from the HS ranks, and you simply can't assume that if they've gotten through those critical years with or without injuries that they're any more of a safe bet. If anything it just proves how lucky you are to land a good player in the draft, no matter where you take that player from. While there are plenty of scientific & not so scientific (often referred to as old-school scouting) methods in which you can decrease the variables, so much of the draft is still an incredible crapshoot.