TheCrew07

I understand we are on opposite sides of this issue but the very idea that he wasn't a reach in the eyes of many in the baseball community is the problem, not the answer. I will concede that I stay away from low arm slot pitchers as a personal preference, but there's also a good reason for that. I'm not sure how you can claim the arm slot isn't an issue when in fact he couldn't keep the ball down in the zone in WI last season, and apparently was the same guy this year to a woeful result. At some point doesn't there need to acknowledgement that the results haven't come close to matching the upside? The Brewers had him back off his FB in an effort to get him to throw strikes, and we weren't talking a 1st tier FB to being with. Kodi's 2016 was a train wreck, and I do believe he was pushed to aggressively given the quality of his overall game. Everyone is rooting for Kodi, even me, and I agree that's he's a good kid, that's not the issue, nor will his unique development pace be the issue. The issue is projecting pitchers who have a plus pitch or 2, no matter how nasty, that are around the plate as having top of the rotation potential, when it's not that simple. In Kodi's case he's very good at spotting his slider under a RH batter's hands but that's only spot he could consistently put it in 2015. His change was almost always the same spot thigh high on the arm side of the plate, and his FB was pretty much all over the place with that great downward action. He induced a ton of groundballs on his FB's action, not it's location, and he piled up strike outs on that slider, but the better teams in the MWL figured him out and he struggled badly against them. The sum of those tools weren't as good as his peripherals would suggest, and I thought pushing him to BC was a mistake and said it many times this year. There's a reason I watched his video and he wasn't even mentioned in my draft posts in 2014, I've been very consistent and open about the kind of pitchers I'd like to draft in the first round and why I want them. It's not necessary that we agree, but I do think you're letting your personal affinity for Kodi and his family cloud your overall assessment of his selection by the Brewers. I would have happily passed on him for Newcomb or Holmes and let some other team take him in the first, the fact that another team was interested in him doesn't in itself justify the selection. We could have a gone a different route and still signed both Harrison (a selection I loved) and Gatewood (who was obviously boom or bust), that's why I don't think Medeiros was chosen simply because he would sign for underslot. There were also plenty of teams that saw him as nothing more than a reliever if he made it, and as I said earlier potential is relative to the eye of the beholder.

I think too much is being made of this bullpen thing. Most of those awesome bullpen pitchers had stuff and a big arm when they were acquired, but for various reasons didn't work out in the rotation and fell back to the bullpen, like Wade Davis. What I mean is that having starters to get you through 4-5 innings wasn't the plan, it was just how it worked out, and relying on the bullpen for half the innings in a game only works in the post season because of the off days. The flip side is what Bumgarner did last night. I absolutely agree that there is always more than 1 way to get home, but the idea should be to acquire as many legitimate pitchers from a stuff and arm standpoint as possible let them shake out as they will. I still firmly believe that we don't need an "ace", the goal should be 3 #2 type starting pitchers, I'd be ecstatic with a 1-3 of Gallardo types, because the rest of the guys with legit stuff will end up in the bullpen and we'll have a very strong pitching staff all the way around. I'm not big into one or the other type scenarios, the Brewer's weren't developing bullpen arms for the same reason they weren't developing starters, there simply weren't enough high quality arms in the system at any given point to do so. Impact pitchers, starters or relievers, all come from the same pool, and creating that depth is the key issue. Most years the Brewers have been lucky to have a 1 or 2, then a 3, and then 3 #4/#5 type starters, hence the "Capauno is the true staff ace" type of post from years ago.

I think baseball is definitely moving in the same direction as the NFL with concessions. Concession prices out are out of hand. I was at Comerica Park last week and 1 round of 4 beers (3 Miller Lite and 1 Coors Light) was $38.00, obviously not beer which would typically be high priced. We were on vacation and had all significantly over budgeted for the trip so we were happy to take turns buying rounds waiting out the rain, but that was far outside of our normal stadium experience. There's simply no way we would have bought 6 rounds of beer over 3 hours at a Brewer game. Granted the rain delay situation doesn't exist at Miller Park but there's no novelty to the Miller Park experience anymore either which would compel me to purchase anything inside the park (other than Brewer gear). If I'm going to drink we get there early and tailgate and then bring water into the game so we're good for the drive home. Once prices started going up we just adjusted our behavior and reduced our in stadium spending down to tickets. I would think there would definitely be a point of diminishing returns, it's not like WI is booming and salaries are keeping up with the massive inflation of ballpark concessions. Who are these people willing to double the cost of a game buying stadium concessions on a regular basis? I highly doubt the majority of season holders would, in fact I bet on the whole they are most miserly inside the stadium, at least the small # of season ticket holders I know are.

You're probably correct Narwhal, I had somehow forgotten those rants, but I think the same is true of Ray, the Brewers honestly thought he was the best player available at that slot. I certainly didn't view Ray as a star on draft day, I think he'll be average to above average if he hits well, but there's absolutely nothing wrong with him as a player. Of course I wanted pitching so I was disappointed, but then again I've been disappointed even when I've gotten pitching in the first because the target wasn't what I've hoped for. I agree wholeheartedly that the Brewers need more impact potential, especially on the pitching front, but I disagree that you won't be able to get impact pitching going underslot. The Brewers simply need to do a better job identifying impact pitching talent, they've gotten much better at finding those middle ground inning eater types, but every pitcher at the top of our heap has the same set of issues with consistently finding the strike zone. The core issue is probably the lack of consensus in what are good pitching mechanics, or believing in things like "a natural arm slot" when kids simply mimic what they see to choose their arm slot at a young age. I don't think there are any easy answers, and I've admittedly long chastised the Brewers for their lack of a progressive approach when it comes to development of both hitters and pitchers. There isn't much originality from the organization, just a bunch of borrowed ideas that others have already proven concept for, the end result of which is that the Brewers are always a couple of years behind the curve.

When did going under slot become synonymous with "lower ceiling"? The teams that have had success utilizing that strategy didn't have the consensus top player on the board as their #1, or at least thought the drop off to their guy was minimal. For example I fail to see how Houston settled for lesser talent getting a career .829 OPS out of a 21 year old SS to this point? Carlos Correa was an awesome pick, full slot value or not, and for that matter any team would be crazy to pay more than they have to for any player, that's just bad business. Correa has accumulated more WAR than the rest of the top 10 picks in the 2012 draft to this point. If this talk is stemming from the Brewers picking Medeiros at 12 and signing him for slightly under slot value I would argue that Kodi wasn't worthy of being picked in that slot regardless and said so at the time, but he nailed his workout and the team thought they were getting a front line starter for significant cost savings. The gulf between Correa and Medeiros was in the eye of the beholder on draft day, the Brewers just aren't good at identifying top of the rotation talent. I don't really believe the Brewers picked Medeiros solely because he could be had for cheap in that slot, to me that's stretching the truth of what happened. My concern has more to do with the workout warrior justification of a draft pick, it seems that every time the Brewers have gone that route the draft pick has blown up on them... Frederickson, Walla, and Medeiros stand out to me in that regard and I will continue to cringe every time a work out is mentioned as the primary justification for any pick. Just because the Brewers botched the situation with Medeiros doesn't mean the strategy isn't a sound team building concept, in truth it's actually a very good way to add more high ceiling talent to a system than a team would otherwise be able to. To me it's basically taking the HS kid over the 4yr player, betting on the HS kid to reach his ceiling as he matures, but that doesn't mean the HS player has a lower ceiling as a player.

I don't think this is the tragedy that some have made it to be, and not to single out adambr2, but Colorado Springs didn't anything to Jorge, Jorge did it to himself. I actually think there's some value to pitching in Colorado Springs in learning how to overcome adversity and pitch in a different manner than one is used to. If anything CS highlights the problem which so many of the Brewer's top pitching prospects face, none are particularly adept at controlling their FB and when you don't have secondary stuff to fall back on FB location becomes everything. Hader and Jungmann in particular work off the plate so much with their off speed that I think there's value in reinforcing the need for better FB control and command, and truthfully better control and command of all their pitches in general.

Once again Melvin didn't draft anyone for the Brewers, ever. Jack Z and Bruce S (Ray Montgomery for 1 year) did all of the drafting during Melvin's tenure. They didn't do the best they could to acquire impact pitching, in fact the draft position was a heck of a lot better under Jack Z than under Seid... Mike Jones, Mark Rogers, Jeremy Jeffress, Evan Frederickson, Jake Odorizzi, Kyle Hendrickson, Eric Arnett, and Dylan Covey were all picked in the 1st round from 2001 to 2010. Not a single starting pitcher for the Brewers from that bunch, and of course Odorizzi was traded so KC could win a World Series. I've pointed out numerous times that only having a couple of high risk high reward prospects at any one time was a strategy to fail. Not to mention they went signability with high risk players and never spent big money later in the draft for players that were slipping when that could be done. Yovani Gallardo was far and away the best pitching prospect from that time frame, and he was a 2nd rounder which of course meant that draft position mattered little for that selection. I think that's a reasonable take, though I'm not sure I'd go to the fantastic card in terms of pitching. We've traded for an awful lot of guys who project as 3s best case and while you can win enough games with an average pitching staff to get into the playoffs, I firmly believe that's not enough to win a championship. Play off baseball is all about match-ups and best on best, because of the off days the depth of your roster isn't as important as the talent at the top.

The player who's the best defensively I would imagine.

All of the best leaders delegate and develop the talent underneath them, I would hope Mark A is that type of person, especially with a business as small time as a minor league team, at least in comparison to a full fledged MLB franchise.

Geez, I did say "per game" when what I meant was "in a game" which is why I used a specific pitcher reference, my bad there. Nobody has 480 wild pitches in a season, that math was ridiculous, I should have proof read better than that. Wild Pitches are base runner dependent so they aren't a great benchmark, but when used in conjunction with PBs you can get a pretty good idea. I still prefer the eye test to establish a ceiling if you will, which you aren't able to get from statistical analysis. However, other than vines and MILB.com video, I didn't watch any AA outside of Hader, and at the time I wasn't interested in Nottingham's defense. I was just taking a quick look at Hader's mechanics, control, command, and stuff. Hader isn't a sniper by any stretch, so it will be interesting to see how fares at MLB, he's a more nasty version of Peralta, but I think he'll be similarly up and down. In his good years people claim he's the "true staff ace" and in his bad years people will wonder what happened to him. The answer of course will be nothing, players with difficult mechanics have a harder time being consistent. I would love to be wrong and have him be the first legit #2 for this next wave, I've been harping on the #2 concept forever, but I just didn't see enough to sell me yet. Getting back to Nottingham I would hope he works his butt off this winter and repeats AA, he's young enough that shouldn't be a problem. Well, unless the organization wants to bump Carlos Leal up to AA upon his return because McDowell will deserve to be in A+ next year, which to me would be foolish. They did create an unnecessary back log of OFs in WI to start 2016, which had some players playing up to a level too high, so it's possible that would be the scenario. However I'm happy with the catchers we currently have minus Maldy, so I don't feel any pressure to rush Nottingham. I'm curious what the scouts will have to say about Nottingham when the prospect lists are updated at mlbpipeline and Baseball America this winter because on the surface it appears he didn't make much progress.

I'm obviously disappointed, but I've already said everything I have to say about MILB affiliates between the AAA and A+ threads. /sigh Casey that was a pretty sweet chart at the end of the BC thread, that was much better than me just listing out the populations in the AAA thread. I may steal that concept for future use!

General receiving skills are pretty easy to assess without the eye test, Passed Balls and the # of Wild Pitches for the pitching staff will tell you pretty everything you to know about the current state of a catchers defense. Any ball in the dirt is by rule a wild pitch, regardless of how easy it would have been to block. If you see 4-5 wild pitches per game and it's not someone like Evan Frederickson on the mound then the C has some issues, especially at AA.

Of course you have a time accepting the approach when it runs so counter to your own personal philosophy and I've haven't read a post from you acknowledging that the win now philosophy didn't work out, or at least that the Brewers weren't competitive even during that "great recent run". I will say that once again you cherry picked the example and dismissed the rest of the moves. You aren't looking at moves he has made a whole, or the roster situation, you're focusing on the minor league side. I find your one sided approach frustrating at best, the very fact that the Brewers are averagish after trading so many players actually proves the counter argument to your point. Simply put, that you don't have to hang onto high priced veterans to win. I know this post will have absolutely no affect, that it will continue to all about wins and losses for you ignoring the much larger picture of how to actually build and sustain success, but somehow I'm compelled to beat my head against this wall. It's sad.

I point again to the Dayton Dragons who were awful and and yet outdrew 80% of the AAA teams. You can continue to ignore all of the evidence because it doesn't fit your simplistic model of winning and losing, but have you even read, listened, or watched an interview with a minor league team president or GM? They talk about marketing an experience and players, not a winning team, because winning and losing is outside of their control. Like it or not the Brewers haven't been a marketable franchise from a historical perspective, and the Brewers haven't really put much effort into their minor league affiliates, the only relationship they seem to cherish is the T-Rats which is easy to do a bunch of cross promotional stuff for. They've always been good with the affiliates from a communication perspective, but if you're a baseball fan in MS does it matter to you that Orlando Arcia was a Shucker last year? Or Josh Hader was this year? There are many reasons why the Brewers end up getting stuck with the last available franchise when the dust settles, and while I agree that winning and losing can have an effect, it's not the primary factor, what matters most is the marketing opportunities the parent organization provides. Without rehab assignments, without impact talent reaching the major leagues, without ever winning, what can the MiLB team market to fans beyond the typical minor league experience? One of the primary reasons I've wanted the Brewers to buy into MiLB affiliates is simply because they aren't a marketable franchise around baseball and that's a difficult conversation to have because many Brewer fans simply don't want to believe it. Buying into a situation with good facilities for prospect development eliminates that factor and brings long term security to the situation... all of the issues that concern me from a development perspective can be wiped away making the process extremely black and white. The Brewers don't have a winning tradition of baseball at any level, and the quality of baseball hasn't improved for the Rattlers by having the Brewers as the parent organization, what's made the biggest difference for the improvement in attendance has been the regional affiliation to the Brewers.

I was posting from an Affiliate perspective, not a development perspective. The 2012 T-Rats won a league title without a legitimate prospect anywhere, Jason Rogers and Yadiel Rivera were it, and then some current relievers like GoForth, Cravy, and Barnes. The best prospect was Mitch Haniger but he only played 14 games after the draft before going down for the season with an injury. I agree that winning can positively effect player development, but I don't think player development really has part in this discussion other than concerns about the weather and facility amenities which could negatively impact development.

Minor League teams for the most part know they don't control the talent and therefore the product so they go out of their way to control the experience. I really don't want to rehash all of the various articles about this which MH and I have linked over the years, but in the long run individual talent matters more than winning and losing, teams market past players who moved up to MLB. It's true that our AAA teams with Nashville were awful, but what legitimate prospect went through there in those losing years? The Brewers didn't give the Sounds anything to work with at all so while I was disappointed about losing out on a now tremendous stadium situation in Nashville, I understood it because when I doubled up that was the other team I ended up covering more often not for the Link Report. Huntsville had some tremendous teams and no one in the community cared that they won, or they were prospect laden, they just wanted to talk about the A's prospects of ole. The 2008 Stars were absolutely loaded with talent as just about every regular position player made it to MLB and they still had the 2nd worst attendance in the league. Granted the pitching wasn't all that great but the hitters put up a .784(!) OPS on the season. Biloxi has drawn almost the exact same same # of fans in 2 seasons regardless of the conditions while baseball is new to the community, with plenty of high profile prospects, and winning, yet the Shuckers attendance is 3rd worst in the league. I think it's bigger and than winning and losing and without a great baseball tradition which stretches back 20-30 years (essentially a brand) a regional affiliation is pretty key. The Dayton Dragons (47-93) were awful this season but still led the MWL in attendance as they always do, in fact their game average is 7th best in all of minor league baseball, that's incredible. I think if you combine a brand with a regional affiliation then you have the potential for a fairly special relationship. I don't a see another WI fit for A+ or AA, there just aren't any leagues in the north, so to get that kind of regional affiliation we're talking about getting a AAA club into Madison, or going without like the Brewers always have, because I don't see the Cubs ever giving up Iowa.

He's 23, and honestly, if he's out of Brevard County, I think he'll prove to be a solid option. Brevard County is a death trap for hitters. He was a below average C for A ball, he was a decent 1B. He's not a C, just like Coulter wasn't a C. edit. As far as BC goes, Mitch is a switch hitter, so he bats LH most of the time, which minimizes the BC effect.

I'm not sure any of us have the answer right now, and of course every player comes with somewhat unique mental skills, I don't mean to suggest intelligence, but rather a combination of instinct, confidence, and toughness. I'm not exactly sure how to put into words so I'll go to a military analogy to help illuminate my point. Just about every young man who applies for SEAL training has all of the physical tools necessary to do the job and have been outstanding to even get to BUDs (BUD/S), so the only difference between those guys is their mental approach. There are people that just somehow know they are better and tougher than anyone else, they carry themselves differently (like a Ryan Braun or Brett Lawrie in the baseball world), riding the fine lines between extreme confidence, over confidence, and arrogance. Some have that quiet confidence where they just always expect to excel, failure just isn't an option. Other people have to find that thing within themselves, discovering that they can push themselves farther than they initially thought possible starting to quickly ascend as both a person and soldier. The rest just don't have the ability to keep overcoming adversity, keep pushing forward at the level necessary to succeed in that environment, and never will. Coming back to baseball where does Ray fit in that into scheme mentally? If he has one of those special personalities it can work to push a player into a such a challenging initial assignment and he'll have a very successful 2017 season in AA. However, I think if the idea is that any player can do it simply because of their draft position, then that's a poor assumption. I prefer to start everyone at the same level and let them ascend at their own pace as I've been involved in some poor decisions moving up players too soon which negatively impacted their athletic development. Howie Long said something interesting that's always stuck with me. He said to consider physical talent 1 elevator and mental talent another. For professionals the talent elevator is going to stay peaked until the mid 20s and then slowly move from it's initial position towards the ground floor. The mental elevator starts near the ground floor and ascends at a pace depending on how quickly players can absorb information and experience. Peak performance for an athlete occurs where ever those elevators meet or get within close proximity to each other. It's a somewhat crude analogy, but it's easy to understand and clearly illustrates the point. Once someone's confidence is shot, that's it, and that's why I'm mostly concerned with safeguarding an athlete's confidence first. Some players will fail no matter how low they start, but I'd like as many as possible to start their careers with some level of success to fall back on. My gut feeling is that Ray will be okay but that doesn't mean our expectation should be that every college player drafted in the first round starts out at A+. It certainly didn't do much for Jungmann and Bradley, I think that's something to be evaluated on a case by case basis rather than a blanket policy.

Casey I just reread my post and I hope this part didn't come off as condescending, I was genuinely curious where you were coming from, but the sentence doesn't read that way upon further reflection.

I think this has been the prevailing view around the forum for years, posters wanted our prospects promoted more aggressively. I don't agree... for hitters you can promote them aggressively if you think will adjust, but pitchers need certain benchmarks to be able to maintain success. I'd rather not into an extended discussion rehashing this, but I think the new regime's aggressive promotions of young players adequately highlights all of my reasons for concern on the pitching side. There are some very notable hitters who were out of place all season like Malik Collymore, I think that did prospects like him a great disservice. I would take the time to go back through all of the top 5 college players drafted over the last 30 years to point out how few players have started at A+, including Braun, but it's honestly not worth the effort. Starting players at A+ is all about impatience and has nothing to do with properly placing a hitter in his "correct" environment. The Brewers could easily start a player in Helena, promote to WI (like with Erceg), and then if still successful promote to A+ (like the Cubs did with Schwarber). That's the way the vast majority of teams do it and that's what I think is best from a player development standpoint because it gives the young man a successful base to build off of as they move up. Regardless, Kirby has less than 13 innings pitched professionally which weren't awe inspiring by any stretch, and hasn't pitched in real game in over a year, he should start in WI and work his way up in 2017.

I agreed with everything you said until down to here. Alvarez is a control project along the same lines as Diplan, he's around the plate, has exciting raw tools, but I wasn't for going after him in the International market as I didn't like him as strike thrower at MLB, and I'm still unconvinced. He had a nice 2016 season though, but if placed aggressively for 2017 I think he runs into a bit of a wall similar to Diplan until he makes improvement location wise. I do believe that Alvarez has superior talent to Diplan, but that doesn't mean he's a top of the rotation candidate. I mention this quite a bit but there are so few pitchers who can be truly effectively wild and get outs at the MLB level, it takes someone with extreme talent like Edwin Jackson to make that work, to miss spots by feet instead of inches and still get outs, but on the whole I think his career has been disappointing given his arm and stuff. In career year a guy like that pitches like a top of the rotation piece, but most of the time he's floating in the 3-5 range. As for the 14-17 guys, could the Brewers use more pitching depth? Sure. I guess this really comes down to the expectation. Brock Stewart is a project... great stats but the stuff doesn't match up with production. He can certainly continue to improve his stuff since he's new to being a full time pitcher, and his velocity could also improve, but that's quite a few "ifs" for a 24 year old. I'd feel differently if he were 21. Josh Sborz - Not a fan of his mechanics, doesn't really have a plus pitch, he's another project but is 22 so has more time on his side. Imani Abdullah - prototypical frame, good athlete, inconsistent velocity, doesn't have a plus pitch but plenty of time just being 19. Chase De Jong - Nothing sexy but gets decent results, he's 22. So sure all those guys could have MLB value, but what's the goal here? Just depth? Quality depth? Top of the rotation potential? Puig doesn't really excite me, sure he's talented, but is trending the opposite way of what you'd hope for a young player. I realize he's been injured and demoted with his PAs dropping off significantly the last 2 seasons. Having to take McCarthy's salary... well whatever, but he's not a net + over we already have, so if we're trading with the Dodgers and giving up the best player on the team, regardless of salary, I'd want De Leon back, a pitcher with a reasonable shot at being a #2. Otherwise we're just helping the rich get richer by helping the Dodgers clear salary by taking a pitcher they don't need, swapping a much more consistently productive albeit older OF and at least a neutral clubhouse guy, taking on salary when cost really isn't an issue for them in the first place, and helping Braun move back home... but without a great prospect where's the significant upside for the Brewers? Sure Puig could bounce back and match Braun's production, but how realistic is that? What are the legitimate best case odds for that scenario? I see quite a bit of wishful thinking, but if Puig is a centerpiece then for me personally, forget it. We won't get Urias so if not De Leon then I'd rather hang onto Braun and move forward as best we can at a later date. When it comes to trades I'm assessing pitchers the same way I would for a 1st round pick, I want the marquee pitcher to have a legitimate chance of being a #2, then after that I don't care who or far they go down into the low minors for a player like Abdullah. I'd take talent and projection over production after that first guy, but if production is all we can get, that's fine if the first player has a high enough ceiling. Trading gives Milwaukee the opportunity to address a position of weakness from one of relative strength and at some point we have to start looking at the top of the rotation. I'm also very high on Luis Ortiz, but he needs to miss more bats or he's not going reach his potential either, if we want 2 legit #2s at MLB then we'd better have 4 pitchers with that potential in the pipeline. I'm fully aware that trading for the best talent available is a good rule of thumb but at the same time do we really need to acquire more OF prospects, especially when the Brewers haven't been so good acquiring top of the rotation pitching through the draft? If you aren't drafting it and aren't able to to afford it in FA, then you'd better trade for it.

I've begged for a top of the rotation type pitcher every year since 2008... and I was penalized with Arnett whom I liked at the time given the scouting reports and I wasn't as learned about mechanics as I am now, Jungmann whom I disliked from the start because he didn't have plus stuff, and Medieros whom I never even considered because I want to stay away from low arm slot pitchers in the first round. So I think in the future I'm just going to stick with what I did this year and throw some pitching and hitting names into the void and leave it at that. If one of the guys I like gets picked... great! If not I'll just hope for the best. To directly answer your question, the depth of the pitching is always somewhat dependent on health, much more so than the hitting, so it's too early to call. Potentially yes, even in a down year for pitching I think there's a Triston McKenzie type pitcher with smooth mechanics, athleticism, and quite a bit of bit of projection who gets over looked to certain extent, a nugget if you will. At 10 we're looking at an ascending college arm like Newcomb from a couple of years ago, or a HS pitcher with projection. McKenzie was the 17th (if I counted correctly) pitcher taken in 2015, and we drafted Kirby 2 slots ahead of him who had control issues in college with fairly decent mechanics, which gave me pause because there just wasn't a good reason for his spotty control (i speculated athleticism might be the issue), and then of course ended up needing TJ. The only HS pitchers I would have taken ahead of McKenzie that year were Allard and Aiken. Aiken (17th) had a pretty uneven debut coming back from TJ in the 2nd half, Allard (14th) ascended over the course of the season to finish strong in the SAL, he made the Hot Sheet towards the end of the season. Bickford (18th) was from that same draft, we know he ended up in A+ for us, I wasn't a fan of him in the first round. I liked Ashe Russell (21st) from his scouting reports until I watched his video, he's pitched poorly and isn't out of R ball yet. No HS pitchers taken between Russell and McKenzie have done anything to make me regret dismissing them in the first, a couple of guys have had some success from an ERA perspective, but their K/9s are completely uninspiring. Here's my post about the top of that draft. P.S. I feel like I always mess up whom vs who, so I apologize if I used them incorrectly. edit. Oops I thought that was post Jul 8th, but it was Jun 8th.

I have, extensively, and while he definitely stands out, he didn't look like Mike Trout or Byron Buxton who were completely dominant and looked out of place in A ball. He has great potential as a hitter, he had an outstanding season given his age relative to his level, but let's not get carried away with over the top assessments of his play. He's not nearly as refined as the recent super prospects to come through the league, which is essentially the difference between A ball and MLB, and why even the best prospects move at different paces through minors from one another. Mike Trout looked a man playing among boys and simply put he never made a mistake in 2 series against the Rattlers, everything he did was perfect and I was extremely tired of him after 6 games, I felt the same way of Buxton. Diaz was more of a player like Eddie Rosario, though Eddie hit for a higher AVE and was much more reliable as a fielder, but he was more of a thorn in your side type opponent than a "DAMN!" kind of player. As I said Isan's season was one of extremes and we can only hope that he smooths out the ride as he matures, otherwise he'll hit somewhat like a JJ Hardy... great runs of HRs every other game followed by long streaks of blah, and I say that even though Hardy is my namesake for this site.

Ehh I don't particularly like it when people make this claim. It is easy to say that until he is less selective and his OBP% goes from .350 to .310. Personally I will take a guy being selective and not jumping on fastballs which in a lot of cases end up as outs. Less selective means more first pitch outs happen and those really hurt. Unless you know you can crush them every time it just isn't worth it. I don't think Santana is the kind of hitter to capitalize enough to make it worth it. I think that's quite the generalization about hitting, this kind of stuff was analyzed to death back in the day, I couldn't find the much simplified study I was thinking of, but here's a more complicated explanation, it's very long winded, you can skip down and look at the charts. I want to say the original article I was read was on BP, but I couldn't find it via google, and I'm not a subscriber over there any more. The chart at the bottom is fairly self explanatory. Being selective is not about taking pitches, it's about waiting for your pitch, in your hitting zone, and then putting a good swing on it. If it's pitch 1 or pitch 12, that doesn't matter, hit your pitch, not the pitcher's. I said this about Weeks, he was easy to game plan, and most pitchers started him off with a get-me-over FB for strike 1... instead of getting that kind of a mistake pitch in a 2-1 or 3-1 count where he could/would attack it, he too often let the best pitch to hit in his AB go bye without even offering for the sake of taking a strike. Hitting numbers are rather abysmal when the hitter is down in the count, regardless of the actual count. It's very important to take the first pitch if it's a ball, there's no substitute for being ahead in the count as a hitter, but to take a first pitch strike for the sake of a taking pitch just puts the batter on the wrong side of the curve. I batted 1 or 2 my entire baseball career, I'm sure many others on this site did as well, and I'm sure just like me they took pitches to take pitches because they were good enough to get on base regardless of the count and it gave the hitters behind us more pitches to see. That's not really case for the majority of MLB hitters, what worked for us against scrub competition doesn't work against professionals, only best hitters can pull it off, and the statistics prove without a doubt what a poor strategy it is.

I find it interesting that Jason Heyward has the lowest OPS (.605) of all regular starting position players for the Cubs who are 40 games over .500. I ceased to follow other teams' forums years ago but I wonder if his production causes the angst around there that the same player would here?