Rate the Draft.

[berniebrewer4life]

Wel, now day one is over, it's time to rate how today went.

[colbyjack]

I would rank it a B, but I would cross out the "could have done better in the lower rounds" comment because as I just pointed out in another thread, we really don't know who these prospects are. And it's not like we passed on far superior talent to take the players we did.

 

And you never draft for need, as much as I wanted to see a 3B taken within the first 5 rounds (something I've hope for the past 2-3 years).

 

I wondered before the draft if the Brewers would take some pitchers that coincided with their overall sinkerball philosophy, and it appears as though they did with Wahpepah, Langille and a few of the others that reportedly work well down in the zone.

 

Also, no surprise on the focus on Canadians, another area I expected them to focus. As Bill or someone else noted on another thread, we won't see these players pitch until next season due to Visa issues, so it will be interesting to see how those players are handled this summer. They could all be pitching for the Canadian Olympic team for all I know, or even their junior national squad.

[bjkrautk]

I gave them a 'B' as well. I can't give them an 'A,' since they didn't take the players that I wanted (Bailey & Jaramillo....as the draft turned out) in the early rounds, although they did nab the player I wanted in Baker.

 

Admittedly, I'd feel better about this draft crop if it didn't have so many high schoolers, but everything I've heard seems to suggest that Milwaukee did a good job. Now they just have to sign them all. http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/happy.gif

 

I'd say 'B+' but that wasn't an option.

[batman]

I'd go with "B", too. I disagree with the overall philosophy of selecting high schooler pitchers in the early rounds, but at the same time I recognize there are risks regardless of your choices and I'm confident that we didn't take any unnecessary or irrational gambles. I would have preferred Jaramillo in the second round, but Salome looks really good and I'm having a hard time figuring out how he dropped so low. If not Jaramillo, then Billy Buckner, who has really impressed me. I also really like Baker in the fourth round... that's one of those low-risk picks of a proven college pitcher that I really like. And as I mentioned on another thread, I love Steve Sollmann in the tenth... that's another case where I can't figure out how he dropped so far.

 

If Rogers is as good as advertised, this looks solid. If not, then some of the lower selections might still make up for it, as I think we got at least three players that were relative "steals" for their round - Baker, Salome, and Sollmann.

 

~Bill

[nikip43]

though I made a silly comment how the draft seemed to tail off in round 11 through 15 I can't identify a player taken in those rounds that I would rather have.

 

I would have to give the draft an A- with the upsides of the first three pitchers taken. Of all the pitchers taken in the first round, none was a clear cut winner as far as talent and in 5 years our guy could either be the best, worst, or middle of the pack. It was definatly a crapshoot this year, luckly the Brewers have a pretty good (or should I say a pretty crappy) shooter in Jack Z. I think Rogers is going to be a fine pick and his arm is just as electric as any other. Yovani Gallardo and Josh Wahpepah are two guys that should be fun to follow and hopefully both will sign for a reasonable price.

 

Angel Salome and Stephen Chapman are two players that I am most excites about however. Salome is a guy that I think could have gone several rounds higher and I definatly think he's got a ton of upside even at 5'7" tall. Baseball America rated him the #2 infield arm behind the number one pick (Bush) and the way he hit the ball in high school is incredible. Chapman is a guy that I hope the Brewers will be able to lure away from Auburn with a little extra money and could definatly be an outfielder who comes in and hits right away. He's an exciting player who I think could be a definate steal in the 6th round.

 

Sollmann and Baker are two guys that I think can be organizational soldiers at least as both seem very advanced players. Solid guys from great schools who definatly got overlooked early in the draft. Lastly Alexandre Periard who is only 16 years old is intriguing as he was rated the #2 Canadian at such a young age and is said to be mature beyond his years.

 

I think the fact that our Candians can pretty much be draft and follow guys without going through that process is exciting and drafting center field and shortstop even though that appears to be a solid organizational strength shows me that the Crew was definatly looked at best player available in each round.

 

Overall I was very pleased with the draft and hope for the best on day 2.

[RobertR]

I'm no draft expert.

 

On the one hand, I trust Jack Z.

 

OTOH, I really do feel they drafted too many high school pitchers. I guess we'll see where they stand in 4 or 5 years, but given the state of the organization, not to mention the risk involved, I would have preferred pitchers that could move faster through the farm system.

 

I guess I trust that they didn't do anything stupid, but I get the feeling that we'll get a lot more of the same highs and lows of following Mike Jones with these draft picks.

 

Robert

[Never Outhustled]

I like the fact the Brewers took high end pitchers, all of whom have good movement on there fastball. I was disapointed they didn't grab a postion player in the 1st 4 rounds, because history shows its your only decent chance to land one. I'm esctatic they did't blow draft choices on low ceiling college AA fodder (like Jaramillo, who's the next Matt Walbeck) untill Sollman in round 10.

[gregmag]

Giving this draft an "F" would be arrogant in the extreme, so I'll just be presumptuous and give it a "D." I've already vented about this elsewhere, but I think drafting HS pitchers with high picks is worse (because it's a lot more expensive) than simply drafting no one at all. I'm definitely no expert on all the players, and some of the lower round guys sound good. But I think we just threw away our top two picks, and we obviously can't afford that. Disaster.

 

Greg.

[The Big Cheese]

Very exciting first day of the draft! I really liked the first five picks, especially getting Josh Baker in Round 4 and Angel Salome in Round 5!

 

I can only assume Salome dropped in the draft due to his lack of height (5'7"), but this isn't the NFL, and that shouldn't be too much of detriment to him.

 

I read that at least one scout considered his arm to be in the class of anyone, at any level, in the SPORT of baseball which is very impressive! He does bear a striking similarily to a young Pudge as well!

 

I LOVE Lou Palmisano down in Beloit, but I have to think Angel may be the best catcher in our system now! He'll be very exciting to follow!

 

I believe Baker will have a very solid career and was a great pick in Round 4. Taking Mark Rogers was also a nice pick in my opinion, even though I prefered Bailey. Rogers looked great in the highlights they showed tonight on the local evening news, and I'm very excited to see him pitch.

 

I know its a dream, but maybe someday Sheets & Rogers will be OUR Wood & Prior! http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/smile.gif

 

All in all, a great day one. The top guys are young, but they are all very talented, which is ultimately the reason why I still have a lot of faith for this franchise in the second half of the decade of the '00s!

[950opsLHcatcher]

From a Power 50 perspective, I like this draft a bit more than drafts in recent years. For some reason or another, I feel more confident in the selections past #1. I like Rogers and Gallardo, and I really like Salome, Baker, Sollmann, and Parillo. And I'd really like Wahpepah if not for that contorted picture of him. Last year at this time, we were all all over Weeks, but once it got to Palmisano and Fermaint, it was like... eh? I like all the pitchers that were taken... this system still lacks in pitching, and we could afford to take some chances, so we took them. I commend the scouting staff for that. I think the Brewers were smart in that they took enough college guys that could help soon enough, but they stayed back for the most part and took guys that could be part of the next big wave, along with last year's high schoolers like Hawk and Wooley. I really hope that in a few years we'll be talking about Hawk, Rogers, Gallardo, Wooley, Marion, and Wahpepah as guys that are stepping up. Yah, I would have preferred Bailey and Jaramillo over Rogers and Gallardo, but I like the Salome kid a lot, and generally, a lot of people in the bottom third of the Power 50 better be nervous, if only nervous by extension.

[PeaveyFury]

Disaster.

 

Sorry, but I find this pretty odd....

 

How about we actually let the guys throw an inning of pro ball before we say that we threw away our top two picks? Is that REALLY too much to ask?

[H0FFY]

This is the standard mojo on this board. If you say 'disaster' then, of course, all the thinkers here can find thousands of reasons you are an idiot, or strange, or whatever.

 

But if you say 'fantastic' or 'could not be better', then, of course, you will get 100 replies saying you are clever and in tune.

 

I completely disagree with us taking so, so many high schoolers. But this is my team so I will follow and trust in Jack. But just tell me when I am going to see Neugebauer or Jones zipping them down in Milwaukee. And just tell me that the Crew are going to fork out the money to keep a 25 year old ace.

 

This draft is the draft of a team that thinks its management will behave like they really want to win. But, when push come to shove, the high picks will fail or if they succeed they will go to somebody else when they are 25.

[DSFastball55]

I'm disapointed in the Rogers pick, as I have a major preference for college pitchers over high schoolers. It's just very hard for me to come up with a good list of high school pitchers that lived up to their draft-day hype, much less make it to the bigs without a major injury. I think college pitchers have a better idea of how to pitch to good hitters, as usually highschoolers have rarely faced a real hitter.

[SoCalBrewfan]

Honestly, it's absolutely silly to rate the draft after the first day. (It's a lot of fun, of course...and I would never say don't do it...just recognize that it's silly.) But if you look back at Baseball America's draft ratings, after they know who's signed and who hasn't, they are often 180* wrong by a year later. Detroit supposedly had the best draft in the game a couple years back...two years later that draft had a grade of "C" in the prospect handbook. By next year, that grade might be a D, or a B+, depending on what happens to the two or three players who are still prospects.

[igor67]

I've become less concerned with the college/high school thing over the last year or so. By a variety of metrics college pitchers as a group do better. But the difference isn't very prononounced after round 1. Within round one if you go back and order all the pick in hindsight there's still high school pitcher's that should be drafted before other college pitchers. In the end it seems to me that the difference between high school and college is about equal to good vs. bad scouting maybe even less. And for the moment I'm willing to let Jack do his thing. Especially since high school pitchers might be the newest undervalued commodity http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/wink.gif

[Big Reed]

I gave the draft a B for two reasons. The first is I prefer drafting college pitchers over high school ones. the second reason is that I was hoping we would take a position player in the second or third round rather than waiting until the 5th round to take our first position player.

 

in my "fantasy world" of baseball drafts, agents and player demands and sign-ability would not be a deciding factor . Players should not be able to demand a $10 million signing bonus or hold out for something better or demand only winning teams draft them. All players should accept the team that drafts them, and teams should should reward their players accordingly with an agreeable contract.

 

I am led to wonder, if the signing demands of Weaver and Drew were not so outrageous, and if they had a different agent, would the Brewers have been interested in drafting either of them with their pick? I am also led to wonder, if the Brewers had the third pick instead of the 5th pick, would they have drafted Niemann or Humber over Rogers?

 

Rogers was a tremendous pick, and from listening to his radio interview, he sounds like a great person. But in drafting a high school pitcher, we cannot realistically expect him to arrive and pitch for the Brewers before 2007. and on the negative side, some ESPN radio announcers were predicting guys like Humber and Weaver (if signed fast) may actually pitch in the major leagues this year like Wagner did for the Reds last year. I had hoped we would draft a stud pitcher who would be projected to arrive in 2005. We definitely drafted a stud pitcher. but his arrival date will be a little later than I had hoped.

 

overall grade - B. Rogers is a stud and a tremendous pick. but his arrival date will not be as fast as I hoped. I liked many of our other picks as well.

[bjkrautk]

I had posted this link before the draft, but I wasn't sure anyone saw it...so I'll post it here again.

 

Neyer Fill-in column: college v. hs pitchers

 

The article uses Win Shares, which I will fully admit having no idea how to calculate, but I thought that one part of the article was interesting. When looking at when the college and HS pitchers were drafted, the top 3 HS pitchers drafted averaged just as many win shares over their career as the average of the top 6 college pitchers, and more than numbers 4-to-6 averaged. Considering that the Brewers had the option between the first HS pick, and the 4th college pick, there isn't all that much separating the choices.

 

Admittedly, there is more risk with a HS player in terms of ever making the major leagues....but in this situation, it at least appears as if the potential payoff balances the risk. I don't blame people for disliking the pick (heck, I'd still rather have Kyle Sleeth than Rickie Weeks, but I'm guessing I'm in the minority there). Considering how snake-bit the Brewers have been by prep pitching, it's hard to see the upside in players like Rogers....let's just hope he beats the odds.

[PeaveyFury]

This is the standard mojo on this board. If you say 'disaster' then, of course, all the thinkers here can find thousands of reasons you are an idiot, or strange, or whatever.

 

Good grief...

 

I didn't call him strange, I called the fact that he called the draft a disaster after one day odd, and if you had read the rest of my post, you'd have seen why: Like Socal said, grading this draft the day it happened is pretty pointless, because we'll have no idea of the draft's success for a couple of years. Heck, in 2002, everyone wanted Jack Z's head for drafting Prince, but I'd say that that pick worked out pretty well, wouldn't you? THAT'S why I think that it's odd to call our first two picks a disaster without them throwing even an inning of pro ball.

 

For those that are unhappy with the Rogers pick because he was a HS pitcher, which college guy would you have taken instead?

[colbyjack]

For those that are unhappy with the Rogers pick because he was a HS pitcher, which college guy would you have taken instead?

 

Sowers http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/smile.gif .

[EdgarDiazRocks]

I gave a C just because none of these pitchers are going to be ready when the Hitters are. I understand the "best possible athelete" over "need" and agree with the philosophy ('tho in this year certainly Weaver and Drew as a 3B met both of those criteria without the Boras factor), but when the Weeks, Hardy, Fielder, Hart team is ready, whos going to be in the rotation? These guys will be lucky to be in Huntsville.

 

Rogers said all the right things in that BA interview, but I would have liked somebody a little closer to eat innings every 5th day in 2006 at least in the 2nd round.

[gregmag]

Peavey: I rated the draft prematurely because that's the topic of the thread. Of course I'll think differently about it in a year, and five years, and ten years, just like everybody else will, because we'll have more information. For that matter, I'll think differently over those time spans about the decisions not to start Bill Hall, to bring up Mike Adams, and to sign Geoff Jenkins to an extension. If you want, I'll add "tentatively" to my rating -- as in "tentatively, the Brewers appear to me to have made some absolutely terrible early-round picks." Is that enough caveats? Otherwise, we should all just say, "Huh. Let's wait five years until we know something," and move on.

 

Hoffy: Critics are not victims, and optimists are not engaged in a vast conspiracy to stifle dissent. At least on this board -- when it comes to the present government, I'm not so sure.

 

Greg.

[danzig6767]

I've in general given up getting either to excited or upset about any sports draft after what happened to the Packers in the 90's.I forget the exact year,but i was watching the draft and was getting all angry as we made the picks.We took a bunch of guys i thought were major reaches and some guys who i thought had no chance to help much.We took B.Williams,Freeman,Henderson,Chmura,Timmerman,McKenzie and someone else i forget.I thought we passed on a bunch of superior players,considered the draft a disaster.It was also given horrible draft grades by the socalled draft gurus,lots of D's and C- type of grades.A few years later that draft was a vital core in the rise of the Packers to title contender.

 

Drafting of players in any sport is such an inexact science,even great scouts or GM's have fairly high failure rates.Baseball is even more extreme in this factor,you draft 50 kids and if 5 succeed and play in the bigs you had a great draft.Jack Z has had so much success that i have a hard time questioning choices he makes even if i might not have done the same.I still remember people thought Ron Wolf had lost his mind trading a 1st round pick for a raw third string barfly QB who a year earlier had been drafted in the 2nd round.Even though Wolf made mistakes also,i learned to give him the benefit of the doubt,when it comes to the baseball draft,i feel the same with Jack Z until proven otherwise.

[emunney]

Everyone wanted Greg Miller and Edwin Jackson when we were trading Richie, but realistically, the only shot we had at them was when they were drafted. HS pitchers have a high burn out rate, and I would have preferred Nelson to any other available player, but I can't argue with stocking the system with very high ceiling arms, especially given the dearth of SP on our big league club. The fact is, we weren't going to be able to pick Rogers anywhere else in the draft, just like we weren't going to be able to pick Nelson anywhere else. We took an educated shot. Everyone knows the most valuable commodity in baseball is young starting pitching, and we've at least set ourselves up to be rich in it in 2-3 years.

 

Finally, while it is certainly true that Jack Z's rep is based primarily on position prospects, it bears mentioning that he's good at evaluating pitchers as well, and his reputation is based on four drafts that have focused on positional prospects. Even so, he still snagged Parra and Eveland on DFEs, and Mike Jones is hardly washed up at 21 years old.

[endaround]

Were Drew's demands really outrageous? From what I hear his starting price was about what Weeks got, which wasn't overly high for being #1. Would he be willing to come down from that? Probably.

[SenatorShriv]

This draft is the draft of a team that thinks its management will behave like they really want to win

 

What else should they do HOFFY? Use the draft to try to build more losing teams?

 

I don't get it? Please enlighten all of us with your pessimism.