Rate the Draft.

[emunney]

Danzig, you're misremembering Newsome as McKenzie. Also, it was the 1995 draft, Chmura was not picked, but Jervey was. Excellent recall by you overall though, and I too remember the national media's jeers. That draft won them a Super Bowl. So in a way, your example shows not only how unpredictable the draft is even after it has occurred, but also how impactful it can be, and how enough hits can offset any number of misses in the same draft (Jay Barker, anyone? How about Charles Simmons?). Maybe it also bears mention that the next year, the Packers took John Michels in the 1st, everyone said it was a terrible pick, and it was a terrible pick. Which was of course offset longterm by getting Marco Rivera in the 6th and Flanagan in the 3rd.

[H0FFY]

Shriv, we need a pitcher that will be here in a couple of years and then stick around for 4 years or so. What will happen with drafting all HS pitchers so high is this:

 

1) They will get hurt and never see Milwaukee. This is the most probable outcome.

 

2) If they actually see Milwaukee it will be in 4 years or so. So Ben will be long gone, and we will be back to square one.

 

3) If they actually see Milwaukee and become an Ace, we will see them for about 2 years, then they will be gone.

 

You can see the big advantage of drafting a Sheets - a college guy. He actually was a solid number 3 type for a couple of years and now has become a true Ace. And we will have him for 2 or 3 more years. Drafting high school pitchers will never, never allow that scenario to happen. (Unless you suddenly believe our management will pay out big dollars to keep an Ace. In any case, it is better to have the player for cheap in his prime ages of 26-28. What good is it owning guys until they are 24, then seeing them go to some other team)

 

Our management blew it big time. If they took the best college pitcher available, maybe we can have him throwing with Ben in the latter half of next year. Then we actually have a good rotation, good bullpen, and decent offence (Jenks will not slump for three years and the other guys are pulling their weight a little and the youngsters will start to appear (Hart, Hardy, etc).

 

So, our managment actually drafted to be losers (or .500 at best for the forseeable future). Even if we are so lucky to get ONE Sheets from the HS guys, then he will be all alone carrying the team in 2008, and we will be lucky to be a .500 team up to then, and at then, and after then. So our managment was too scared to draft for success next year. They were plain old scared. It is scarey to manager a winner. It is much easier to sit back and do nothing. Our managment is good at doing that.

 

I hope you are now enlightened.

[filthyfrog]

It is scarey to manager a winner.

 

That's now on my list of most-fun-to-say sentences.

[DuluthBrew]

That may be the dumbest post I have ever read HOFFY.

[Badger OKC]

Hoffy, I have to respectfully disagree with you on your post.

 

On drafting college pitching, there was great talent available at our pick. But, for every Sheets that you can point to, someone else will bring up Kyle Peterson. I don't really recall any of the college arms being referred to as the next Sheets or Zito, who was taken right in front of Ben (if I am not mistaken). So, taking someone who is MLB ready within 24 months as the main reason is a mistake, IMO.

 

HS players take longer to develop, but because of age they are more likely to have a higher ceiling than someone who is four years older. The college players, on the other hand, face stiffer competition, have been away from home (most cases), and will be more mature. So, I feel that there are plusses for taking the older players. But, the chances that they have topped out is much greater.

 

Assuming that we did take college arms in the first couple rounds, their tracks would put them coming up with Jones, Sarfate, Parra, etc... With Hendrickson, Sheets, and I am sure I am forgeting one or two, it will be a tight fit for those five spots.

 

I am personally happy that Melvin and Co. went with the younger players. There course to Milwaukee is a year or two behind those in Huntsville. This has a greater chance of creating a continuous flow of prospects that will help on the field in the future (be it through actual play or trade). If we went college heavy, we would end up with a slightly bigger wave in '06, but maybe only smaller ripples in '07-'09. The college arm(s) that you wanted wouldn't do anything for us in '05 that would be meaningful. Weaver would have the greatest chance to be there in '05, but is he ever going to be Sheets, Zito, Prior, etc... or will he be his brother? I would not pay the 5-10 mil bonus to find out.

[Badger OKC]

Hoffy, if this was two or three years ago, I would be more inclined to agree with most of your agruement. But, this is now and the management would be doing the organization a disservice if it was only looking a year or two out.

[PeaveyFury]

Our management blew it big time. If they took the best college pitcher available, maybe we can have him throwing with Ben in the latter half of next year.

 

I'd like to thank Mark Prior for creating unrealistic expectations for all other college pitchers. If you were expecting a guy like Sowers to be ready by mid-next season, you would have been extremely disappointed. Heck, even Ben Sheets spent 2 years in the minors.

 

I am simply astounded at the number of people that would rather take a college pitcher at all costs rather than the best player available.

 

Its odd that those who wanted a college pitcher all say that Rogers will get hurt and the pick will be wasted, but then say that a college guy would be able to help within the next couple of years, as if the college guys are magically able to avoid injuries. What if we had taken Sowers and he got hurt/became Kyle Peterson II and someone else took Rogers and he became a solid MLB pitcher? The bottom line is that we won't know anything about this draft's success for AT LEAST 2 more years.

 

What happens if Rogers becomes the next Grienke and makes it to the majors in like 2 years?

[FVBrewerFan]

Development time between a top shelf college pitcher and HS pitcher is one year. Even the best college pitchers will almost always take 2-3 years. The best HS arms will take 3-4. So we're going to quibble about a year?

 

That's not even an issue for me. The only thing I'm curious about is why they REALLY liked him over Bailey and Sowers.

[gregmag]

Peavey, slapping the "best player available" label on the Brewers' choice is a cheat, because of course we have to agree on what we mean by "best." Also, you can't try to win the argument by invoking Kyle Peterson any more than Hoffy or I can try to win it by invoking Prior (which I haven't done once).

 

Based on stats that I think Patrick quoted the other day (someone please correct me if I'm wrong), 62% of drafted college pitchers make the bigs against 43% of drafted HS arms. That's a big difference. I also don't buy the automatic appeals to "high ceilings," because they presume that HS pitchers will only get better. Leaving aside injuries for just a minute, HS pitchers are simply unpredictable. There's no automatic reason to assume they'll gain velocity. Mike Jones, IIRC, has lost a fair bit off his fastball.

 

Of course college arms aren't foolproof. Any draft is a gamble. Some of your choices will succeed, some will fail. But, as with a lot of gambles, there are factors that can increase your predictive accuracy. Taking a pitcher who has come through 2-4 more years of high-risk, low-certainty development and thrived strikes me as about the biggest advantage you could ask for in an inherently uncertain process.

 

Greg.

[emunney]

Where would a healthy Mike Jones have gone in this draft? Mike Jones of now, not Mike Jones fresh out of high school.

[H0FFY]

You guys give me so much ammo. But I am at work, so I dont have a lot of time to digest.

 

To my Duluth friend (I grew up in Superior, by the way) - when you disagree with the logic of an argument, you will not be able to change the other persons opinion by saying 'that is the dumbest post I have ever read'.

 

Did anyone talk about the fact that the high school pitcher will be GONE from Milwaukee when he is about 24. What good does that do us then?

 

Neguebauer is a free agent soon. That was good value, hey!

 

My logic is just so, so simple. We are not the Yankees, so we do not keep Mussinas and Browns long term. If Rogers becomes an Ace we will simply let him go (actually, we will trade him). C'mon, be truthful guys. What Ace pitcher have we gone after in the last 10 years.

 

It is OK. I can wait the couple of years to say 'I told you so'. It took almost a year before you guys believed me about Neugebauer. Rememer. When management said 'all was OK'. And Reed and I said we smelled something fishy. You guys all told us to trust management, they would not cover anything up.

 

I stand by my post. Our management could have drafted a guy that would help next year and/or the year after - when Sheets is here. They failed us. Where will we get the one piece we are missing? We are missing a 2/3 guy to go with Sheets. Where will we get that? In the draft the management actually PASSED on that.

 

I am amazed at all the truisms you guys throw out. Is it true there is only one year development difference between a high school pitcher and a college pitcher in the minors.

 

My only hope is this:

 

The Crew sign Ben past his arbitration (wont happen).

The Crew get there number 4 pick to be super good, quick (only pure luck)

The Crew dont coach their young fireballers to throw with control around 90 (that is what they did with Nick, our coaches told him not to throw around 100 any more - good coaches hey)

This Rogers kid makes to the majors in 3 year or so (that is his goal) and becomes an Ace immediately and/or signs long term for money the Crew can afford (ha ha ha ha ha ha)

 

So, you see how grumpy I am. We could have taken a pick that would give us HOPE from the next couple of years. But, our management have pushed out the HOPE meter to 2008. Sh*t, I am gonna be dead eventually, so I cant keep waiting for the five year plan. The five year plan is OK, but when you get to year four, you cant just say 'aw, we changed, we are starting a NEW 5 year plan'. Geez

[Katuluu]

Did anyone talk about the fact that the high school pitcher will be GONE from Milwaukee when he is about 24. What good does that do us then?

 

Are you using new math HOFFY? I'd love to know how he would be gone at 24. Once a player reaches the majors, the team controls his rights for 6 years. So essentially, you think that Rodgers will be pitching in the majors the day after we sign him.

 

Our management could have drafted a guy that would help next year and/or the year after - when Sheets is here.

 

Well which is it? Is Rodgers going to be in Milwaukee in a few weeks, or is it going to be years down the road?

 

Where will we get that? In the draft the management actually PASSED on that.

 

Alright then, I want you to tell me right now which pitcher we passed will be a 2/3 within 2 years in the majors. Put your money where your mouth is.

[batman]

I'm not a fan of selecting high school pitchers in the early rounds, but it's not because of timeframe concerns. I think the data suggests that the attrition rate among prep arms is higher than collegians, and that makes intuitive sense. I also worry about the quality of talent evaluation at such an early age, especially in cases like the Lobster's where he has thrown only 38 innings this season against not-so-good competition. Certainly, the more games a player has under his belt against more predictable, measurable competition, the easier it is to get a grip on his performance and potential performance.

 

I'm not saying that it's impossible to accurately scout high school pitchers. Obviously, that is just not true. Rather, my point is the quality of the data available (and by "data," I include first-hand accounts as well as statistics and health records) decreases the further a player is away from their prime (and by that I mean their late 20s). You can certainly see that a 12-year old pitcher is very good and has lots of potential, but accurately projecting where that individual will be pitching-wise in 10-15 years is nearly impossible. As that same pitcher ages, the accuracy of their "projectability" increases. By the time a pitcher is 18, I think you can get a pretty good grasp of his raw potential. At the same time, I think there necessarily are still a lot of question marks about the pitcher's health, makeup, and performance (including how sustainable said health and performance are).

 

One positive about high school pitchers is that they become the organization's property and we can develop them how and which whom we please. That means no 140-pitch outings by ill-advised college coaches or misguided training programs architected by not-so-bright assistants. If you trust your organization to nurture and develop a young pitcher, then this might appeal to you. Still, there is the risk that even the best development program will be helpless to prevent injuries or ineffectiveness. I think there is a pretty high attrition rate between the ages of 18-22, and I'd much rather gamble on players that have already gotten through that 4-year period healthy and successful.

 

As far as the timeframe issue goes, it's really a non-issue. The player's arbitration clock doesn't start until they are in the major leagues, so it's not like younger players are with us for less time. Intelligent, conservative management of your minor league rosters and promotions is far more important to maximizing your control over a player than is his age.

 

Finally, the argument that one should take "the best available player" is begging the question. The concern I expressed above directly impacts the criteria by which we evaluate a player's "ceiling." I think that, too often, talented but raw high school pitchers are "projected" to a degree that isn't wholly rational. When a pitcher has "some mechanical issues," a "developing breaking ball," and "room to grow into his body," that's a whole lot of variables we are just assuming will go our way. The ability to see a player as he will be in 5-10 years is really difficult, and we are going to be wrong just as many times as we are right. That's why I advocate performance scouting as a pretty important "reality check" on projectability.

 

I wish we would have taken Sowers and Buckner 1-2. Those are two proven, successful, and healthy college pitchers with four more years of experience to evaluate and project. To me, that makes our projections of them more likely to be accurate.

 

I like the Lobster, and he seems to be a very intelligent and cogent young man. I will be a huge fan, and will cheer him on from afar as he joins the organization and progresses toward Milwaukee. I think we all will. But the Brewers did take a pretty big gamble, and they could very easily come up empty.

 

~Bill

[gregmag]

Great post, Bill. I could not agree with you more, including the part about planning to root for Rogers like crazy, and I could not possibly make the points any better (as I have proved by trying and failing to do so like six times).

 

Greg.

[PeaveyFury]

Alright then, I want you to tell me right now which pitcher we passed will be a 2/3 within 2 years in the majors. Put your money where your mouth is.

 

I think I asked that about 36 hours and a page worth of posts ago, and am still waiting for a response....

[danzig6767]

I wish we would have taken Sowers and Buckner 1-2. Those are two proven, successful, and healthy college pitchers with four more years of experience to evaluate and project. To me, that makes our projections of them more likely to be accurate.

 

You very well could be correct Bill,Colby loved Sowers and Gammons believes he'll finish with more career wins than any pitcher taken in the first round.

 

I do wanna ask though,dont you think Jack Z/Melvin/scouts spent incredible an incedible amount of time studying all these players?Given all being equal they had to prefer a college guy for the obvious reasons,safer and usually quicker to the bigs.So i think it's fair to assume in scouting guys like Sowers/Townsed,their projections for them weren't all that great or they would have chosen one of then.They have been in this long enough that the risk factor for HS pitchers had to be considered in the thought process.

 

In the end,let's say you were the guy who had to make the choice for the 5th pick.You have narrowed your choices to a couple college arms and one high school pitcher.After 2 years studying them all intently,you like the college guys,but the HS kid really catches your eye.So it's a few days prior to the draft and you have to make a choice.Your mind is weighing all the factors,your content with the thought of taking the college guy you like most.At the same time you can't shake your gut telling you the HS kid is better and has more potential.So your faced with the choice of going the route you know is safer or taking the kid you really fear you might regret big time passing on,even though you know your taking on a bigger risk if you take him.

 

These type of situaions cant be easy calls with so much at stake.GM's in every sport face this dilema all the time when the draft rolls around.Pick the safer guy or the more raw guy you feel has a bigger upside.These kind of choices get GM's accolades and can contribute to getting them fired.I've always thought it would be cool to run a sports team,but i do think if i actually had to make these calls,i could see myself changing my mind 10 times over.These baseball drafts i have such a hard time forming an opinion on.In football/basketball drafts i've actually seen many of the drafted players on the field a fair number of times,these baseball drafts i see a 45 second clip on the internet.I'd feel kinda silly writing that say Sowers has more upside than the Brewers think based on a 45 second clip when they've probably watched him pitch at least 25 times.I do though Bill feel for WHATEVER reason,based on nothing,that Sowers will have a solid career.

[H0FFY]

So let me get the logic right. I must find the college pitcher who will be a number 2 or 3 starter in 2 years. If I cannot name him, then my argument is wrong.

 

I kind of think your counter-argument is not very well thought out.

 

This Rogers kid seems really, really special. A high schooler who can throw 98 and he really is not even stretched out yet. That is pretty cool.

 

But, but, but, I contend, if there was a college guy that projects as a number 2 or 3 starter in a couple of years, we should have gone down that path. I thought everyone said this Weaver guy was that good he could pitch in the majors tomorrow - but his ceiling was only a number 2 or 3..

 

I can only base my judgement on others observations an comments. But I can base my opinion of HS v College guys on simple facts.

 

The college guy will help quicker.

The college guy is less likely to be broken before he gets here.

The college guy will be here 3 years of his life in his late 20s and not his mid 20s. I would always rather have a player here between 26 and 29 rather than 23 and 25.

 

Can you argue against those facts.

 

Now, it is possible that Rogers is so much better than any college guy around (at the number 5 pick) that you must pick him. But I really cannot agree. I cannot believe that in all the United States Colleges there was not a guy that can help in 2 years at our pick.

 

It is not even up to me to name him. It is up to our drafters to PICK HIM. So the logic of 'name him, now', is just stupid. I firmly believe that we should have picked the BEST COLLEGE PITCHER available at our spot. It was a no brainer.

 

re when the guys leave us; Sheets is a FA, according to this web site in 2 1/2 years; Ben is now 25, so we lose the college guy when he is 28. Actually, it will be interesting to see if Ben is traded because he becomes too expensive, even in his arby years.

 

If Rogers is still our property when he is 28, it means he spent 4 years in the minors, then 6 years with us. I assume he will not be an Ace his first or second year. So, we are talking about Rogers being a big hope for us in years 2011 and 2012. Can I wait that long?

 

Again, if our management is serious, then this must be their plan (if we dont want to Rogers early to arbitraion / free agency, we need to really slowly, slowly, slowly bring him along... hold him back in the minors as long as possible).

 

Finally, if I agree with all you guys that the high school guys should be chosen; and they should not be brought up early; then it means we needs a number 2 or 3 starter from SOMEWHERE in the next year or two. Should we go out and find a tree and pick one?

[endaround]

I just want to add soemthing to Bill said, and that is that high school pitchers are always going to have greater "upside" than college pitchers because less is known about them. Say the true ability of a pitcher is some random variable X. Now know one knows what X really is, but using different measures, we can estimate X . Call this Xe. Now since Xe is an estimate, there is a band around this value that we can similarily expect the player to fall into. The size of the band depends upon the amount of data available. Since college players have more data available, the size of this band will be smaller than that for high school players. So if we take a college pitcher and high school pitcher who have the same Xe, the high school player will be said to have more "upside" because his band is looser. So all the upside really is is a reflection of our lack f knowledge.

[tigerbrew]

Referring to just HS pitchers in this draft, frankly I'm not convince that Rogers is better than Bailey. Can someone help convince me please?

[filthyfrog]

Hoffy, you're clearly not the only one here who would have preferred a college pitcher, but I have one major problem with your arguments. You seem to be under the impression that the fate of the Brewers will be entirely decided by the success or failure of this pick. That's just not true. The minor leagues are pretty stacked right now. Just because Rogers won't be helping the big league club in 2005 or 2006 doesn't mean that someone else won't be. Hendrickson, Jones, Parra, de la Rosa, Sarfate, Ford, Saenz, etc., etc. all have a legitimate chance to become that 2/3 pitcher that you seek while Sheets is still here.

 

You keep saying that you'd rather have a 2/3 pitcher in two years than an ace down the road. I say we've got plenty of candidates for 2/3 pitchers. This is a good time to roll the dice and see if we can't find another ace. Ideally, we'd like to have multiple aces on the same team, like the Cubs, Astros, A's, Red Sox, and Yankees have. But even if Sheets is lost before we can develop a new ace, we're still definitely going to need one a lot more than we need a 2/3 starter.

[igor67]

I'll give a shot at calming Hoffy down. Your basically looking for an excellent quality college pitching prospect. And I think the simplest answer was that by the time we picked the player you were looking for wasn't there anymore. If your going to get a college guy with a #2 ceiling you want to be confident he'll be near that ceiling. A guy like Verlander you can't be sure of anything. Similar with Nieman and the ever changing fastball velocity. Townsend the guy everybody wants to turn into a closer the second he hits a rough patch in the 3rd inning? Humber was gone. That left Weaver, who I would have prefered on merit, but there's a reasonable case to be made that his likely performance was middle of the road (#3) as opposed to above average (#2). For this you wanted the team to sacrifice either the ability to sign numerous other draft picks this year, or MLB player salary for next year? The Giants already determined that they'd rather spend their money on an MLB player than a draft pick (a very bold decision, not that I agree but bold). Now I'm sure you could come back with well they should just spend the money, but Hoffy you know it ain't gonna happen. And given the general success rate squeezing in 3-4 other desireable prospects goes a long way to covering the risk spread so to speak.

[11]

The HS v college debate is not complicated.

 

The reason HS pitchers have more upside over college pitches is simple: If a HS pitcher is very good he goes right into professional baseball. If a HS pitcher is not good enough to make into in professional baseball, he goes to college. (This does not take into consideration sign-ability...but mostly on talent alone. Important characteristics like emotional and physical maturity obviously develop more slowly with certain HS kids making the college option necessary.)

 

HS pitchers have more upside than college pitchers because when both groups were of the same age, the HS kid was simply a better. And as a HS kid gets into professional baseball, he gets the benefit of at least three years of professional training and tutoring designed by the team that picks him, not by a (relatively) 'inferior' college system.

 

 

colby:

 

We are very happy to drafted by the Royals! Before the draft we believed the Royals were the perfect fit for Erik and low and behold...

 

From KC Royals SD Eric Ladnier...(unknown which newspaper quoted him), copied from a KC Royals website...

 

Erik Cordier

 

Another second-round pick was right-hander Erik Cordier from Southern Door High School in Sturgeon Bay, Wisc.

 

"We've seen up to 96 (mph), tremendous life on the fastball. Very, very fresh arm, obviously, because of where he comes from he hasn't pitched a lot of innings," Ladnier said.

 

"For a high school kid, he has a tremendous upside to be an upper level starter but the development process obviously is going to take longer. We got the three pitchers (Campbell, Howell, Buckner) who could get through the system (quickly) and we felt like here's a guy we just can't afford to pass on. He will take longer to develop, but Cordier has the highest ceiling."

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[DuluthBrew]

I apologize to HOFFY. I did not realize he grew up in Superior. That is an experience that will taint a man for life.

[Big Reed]

I can understand where Hoffy is coming from and his frustrations.. by drafting a high school pitcher rather than a college pitcher it seemed to me that we added another year to our "get back to respectability plan". and guys like me and Hoffy are getting old and don't want to wait another year. We want to see wins and a run at a division crown NOW! I want to trade Krynzel or Nelson for a stud starting pitcher like Garcia NOW ! I want to trade Hardy for Renteria NOW ! I want to trade Prince for Helton or Beltran NOW ! I want to trade Jones for Moyer or Mulder or Musina - NOW! I also want the Brewers payroll to be $100 million now - not in the future 15 years from now when I'm dead.

 

the facts are if we don't resign Sheets, it's not going to matter much if we drafted a college pitcher or a high school one. Resigning Sheets will mean more to this team than whether we drafted a high school or college pitcher.

 

the question I have is did we sign the best player available, or did we use money and signing bonus requirements as a major factor in our decision like we did when we drafted Green and other prospects of the nineties? I can't believe how little money Bush signed for.

 

Before the draft, people kept saying that 6 college pitchers had the potential to be in the same class as former college pitchers Mark Prior, Mussina, Zito and Mulder. those 6 pitchers were Humber, Niemann, Weaver, Townsend, Sowers, and Verlander. then after the draft, I found it odd that people started saying that this year's crop of college pitchers was not really in the same class as Prior and that's why we went after the best high school pitcher. even Peter Gammons did the flip flop of over-hyping these pitchers before the draft, and then saying the college pitching talent wasn't that great after the draft. it's amazing what being drafted can do to your ability to pitch.

 

I personally was a big Niemann fan. he proved last year he could pitch and win against top level competition. he battled back from a groin injury this year and seemed to be back on top of his game. I also liked Verlander, Sowers and Weaver. unfortunately, both Verlander and Niemann were drafted before the Brewers picked. this left the Brewers with the choice of Rogers, Sowers or Weaver of the pitchers I liked or the idea of going after a position player like Drew or Nelson.. Weaver was asking for a lot of money. So it came down to Townsend, Sowers or Bailey or Rogers. and of those 4, I think I like Rogers the best with Sowers a close second.

 

it's obvious the Brewers needed and wanted to draft a pitcher. I am led to wonder if neuge, parra and jones were all 100% healthy, might we have looked at drafting a position player such as Nelson or Drew? Everybody kept saying Drew was demanding the same type of money we gave Weeks last year and he would be a very hard sign. Well, Drew was demanding that type of money because he was expecting to be a top 5, possibly #1 pick. And I would think the #1 pick in the draft should at least be given the opportunity to ask for the type of money Weeks received last year. I think with the amount of revenue sharing money we received, the Brewers could have afforded Drew's asking price, and certainly Nelson's asking price. Both players could have developed into an outstanding shortstop or third baseman. Would Drew and Boras have pulled the same stunt on us that they did with his brother and Philly ? or has Boras learned his lesson? While Drew may have been the best talent available when the Brewers drafted, I doubt anybody in the Brewers organization wanted to deal with the headaches involved in drafting him.

 

so it came down to drafting the best pitcher on the board which was Rogers or Sowers or drafting the best talent on the board which may have been Nelson. We needed an ace pitcher bad! I really wanted us to draft Niemann. but given that he was already drafted, I believe Rogers was the "BEST CHOICE" of the available players.

 

one thing that hasn't been mentioned or talked about much. When we drafted Gold and Neugebauer, both players had experienced injuries their senior year in high school and thus their stock dropped and we were willing to take a risk on their health when we drafted them. unfortunately, their injuries became a recurring theme. Rogers does not have a history of injuries. perhaps Rogers will be that guy who breaks the Brewers pitcher injury jinx. While I may be disappointed we drafted a high school pitcher and not a college one, I am eager to follow Roger's progress and wish him well.

[Big Reed]

in reply to the person who said that all the best high school talent is drafted and signs and becomes a pro and colleges just get the leftovers and therefore their ceiling cannot possibly be as high as those of the high school players in the draft. I think your assessment was not totally accurate.

 

there are still a lot of talented high ceiling players who prefer to go to college rather than going straight into the pros upon being drafted out of high school. the Brewers drafted several of these players in the lower rounds with the hope they may be able to convince them not to go to college.

 

Sowers was a first round draft pick out of high school who decided to go to college. and again he was a first round pick. his ceiling hasn't changed much.

 

guys like Giambi and nomar garciaparra were lower draft choices out of high school because they had already made up their minds about going to college first. Mark Prior was a first round draft pick by the Yankees coming out of high school. Why he turned down their offer and went to college is beyond me. but the fact is, he did.

 

while guys like AROD, Griffey and Sheffield were studs coming out of high school, guys like Berkman, Nomar, and Helton were just as studly as high school players, but decided to go to college first.

 

I therefore suggest that there are plenty of college players with ceilings just as high as the high school players they are drafted with. the main problem with college players, just like in the NBA, is that team GMs love the unknown more than the known. Guys like Boozer and Walton fell in the NBA draft because they played college ball for 4 years and became known commodities. but a guy like Darko who averaged 8 ppg in Europe is a mystery and is real tall and could be good, so he is drafted second overall ahead of the known commodity Melo!. Guys like Townsend, Sowers and Weaver became known commodities, and guys like Nelson, Homer Bailey and Rogers leap frogged ahead of them in the draft.

 

I believe the ceiling of college players is just as high as the ceiling of high school players. look at the Brewers !!! Molitor went to college. Yount didn't. the end result was the same. they are both Hall of Famers.