The Review....
If it were my pick, I would have picked Justin Smoak. The switch-hitting power, combined with the the ridiculously high success rate of first-round college first basemen, would have been too much to pass up. That's not even considering how exciting it would be in the short term to see Smoak try and crack the lineup in 2009.
With that out of the way, I'm giddy to have Buster Posey in the organization. Giddy. College-polished catchers of this caliber don't pop up in every draft. There have been hitting-first guys like Jeff Clement or Matt Wieters in recent drafts, or high school projects like Ben Davis or Neil Walker, but it's rare to have a defensively sound catcher who would probably still have been a first-rounder if he were a third baseman. Jason Varitek might be a good comp, but that was almost 15 years ago, and Varitek wasn't quite as heralded as Posey is right now on either side of the ball. These guys aren't around every year. Dig through Baseball Reference's draft database, and try to find a good comparison for Posey. It's tough.
Some folks are trying to downplay Posey's offensive ceiling -- Josh Bard is one name I've read in a couple of places. I don't want to sharpen the hyperbole katana quite yet, but that seems way, way, way too glib. We all know that college stats are unreliable -- aluminum bats, small parks, inconsistent competition -- but that doesn't mean that Posey's success is irrelevant. He leads the NCAA in batting average, on-base percentage, and slugging percentage, and he has more walks than he does strikeouts. He was still considered a first-round pick entering this season, even though he only hit three home runs last season. All he did was up the total to 24. Those extra 21 homers are why every dollar that every reader on this site has ever spent on tickets, beer, malts, and foam fingers will go into Posey's pocket. That's alright. I'll make the sacrifice and pay his per diem for a couple of weeks. The boost in power might not translate perfectly to the pros, but it's nice to know that he isn't as punchless as a mid-'00s Jason Kendall.
The Jason Kendall comparison comes up a lot, too. Stop thinking of the 30-something Kendall, and try to remember the mid-20s Kendall, who was one of the best players in baseball, providing solid defense while hitting .321/.411/.473 at his peak. That was a Craig Biggio-career track until Kendall's ankle shattered into a million pieces. Hell, I'm going to bring up Biggio as a comp, too. Less speed, similar versatility, similar on-base wizardry...
...Buster Posey will have over 3,000 hits, but he'll provide Gold Glove-defense from behind the plate...Bill James will wax rhapsodic about Buster Posey, and call him the "best player of the 10s"...Posey will eventually have a big buddy at first base who will help him solve crimes, just like Jeff Bagwell....
Sorry. I figured I needed to balance out the anger from the initial draft thread. Love this pick, though. I was going to rewrite Young MC's "Bust a Move" for the occasion, but I got as far as "He's dressed in orange/he says..." before realizing that nothing rhymes with "orange."
The rest of the draft was fantastic, as well. Conor Gillaspie is an advanced college bat with a limited (but nice) upside, but the safeness of that pick is balanced by the toolsy high-upside of Roger Kieschnick, who was a top-50 prospect according to Baseball America. While the Gillaspie pick was perfect for an organization without a dependable option at third base, my favorite pick of the day (non-Posey division) is the fourth-rounder, Brandon Crawford. Crawford was ranked in Baseball America's preseason list of top-30 prospects, but he struggled this season. He was the anti-Gordon Beckham, as his 2008 performance moved him to the back of the first day instead of the front of the first round. There's about a 10% chance that Crawford ever makes an impact at the major league level, but that can be said of any fourth-round pick. Few are as highly thought of at any point in their careers as Crawford was before this season, though.
Sure bets, wild chances, no limited-ceiling pitchers early...I'm enamored of this draft. We won't know for a few years how it actually turns out, but that's alright. I plan to overdose on heroin before then. So for the moment, I'm feeling that weird, tingly sensation of...of...hope?
Hope.
It'll do for tonight. Tomorrow, Rich Aurilia will ground into a quadruple play. We'll deal with that then.
1 recs |
125 comments
Comments
Congratulations to you and your team Mr. John Barr
While I appreciate pitching very much this was a very good start to a team building draft. Posey will play well in the community, clubhouse and on the field. Gillaspie reminds me of both Wade Boggs and Bill Mueller. What’s not to like about a toolsy OF? Not as high as Grant is on Crawford but if he can revert to form he could surprise. And finally some pitching.
It is going to feel as if the Giants got a bonus pick when Wendell Fairley finallty steps on the diamond at S-K.
by wilriv21 on Jun 5, 2008 10:22 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I love love love
Kieschnick. a lot.
and I’m very glad we got Brandon Crawford where he was. Not so sold on conor Gillaspie’s swing. And the lack of power kinda doesn’t make me do wonders.
Pure and simple though, Posey was the wrong pick. It should have been smoak.
BROCK BOND LIKES HIS MARTINIS PUNCHED IN THE FACE, NOT STIRRED.
by SloIsLonelyForTheOrange on Jun 5, 2008 10:40 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
doesn’t make me do wonderous tricks and other such tomfoolery. I really should finish my sentences.
BROCK BOND LIKES HIS MARTINIS PUNCHED IN THE FACE, NOT STIRRED.
by SloIsLonelyForTheOrange on Jun 5, 2008 10:43 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Kieschnick
Is he related to Brooks?
by achiappanza on Jun 5, 2008 11:09 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
third
cousin, to be exact.
BROCK BOND LIKES HIS MARTINIS PUNCHED IN THE FACE, NOT STIRRED.
by SloIsLonelyForTheOrange on Jun 5, 2008 11:29 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Blorange is a word.
My Dave Righetti is better than your Dave Righetti.
by howtheyscored on Jun 5, 2008 10:52 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Posey vs. Smoak
two points on this
1. You can prefer Smoak, or anybody else for that matter, but there is no way anybody can call Posey a bad pick (as many people did at the time). Posey was ranked in the top 3 of every list and was strongly considered for the #1 pick, he is a great talent to get with the 5th pick.
2. I know that a lot of you are convinced the Giants front office is run by a bunch of complete idiots who know nothing about baseball. But after the Giants passed on Smoak, the Marlins, Reds (who actually opted for a different 1B), White Sox, Nationals, and Astros all passed on him too. So unless all of those organizations are also run by complete idiots then maybe the Giants were on to something here. I liked Smoak a lot myself, but it seems to me if we passed on Jesus himself as many people seemed to think at the time, then he would have gotten snapped up within the next couple of picks.
by FluLikeSymptoms on Jun 5, 2008 10:55 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
The Astros are run by complete idiots who know nothing about baseball...
...but your larger point stands.
This reminds me of the 2005 draft. Would the Rockies trade Troy Tulowitski for Jay Bruce or Ryan Braun right now? Maybe. Are the Rockies kicking themselves every night because they passed on Bruce and Braun? Probably not. I’d hate to think that Smoak will hit .300/.400/.550 while Posey hits .280/.360/.450, and people will think Posey is a failure of a pick.
by Grant on Jun 5, 2008 11:00 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Unfortunately
Smoak will probably put up ridiculous numbers if and when he gets to Arlington—numbers he couldn’t put up in SF. So folks might bitch and moan about that.
But if Posey’s defense continues to improve, even moderately stupid fans will recognize the value of having a G-G caliber catcher who can contribute meaningfully with the bat. I hope.
Bengie: Like an Aurilia kidney stone, slow-moving and tough to get out.
by juanboy on Jun 5, 2008 11:07 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
it will also be alot easier for the Giants to fill a hole at first base then it would be to fill a hole behind the plate via the trade or FA market. If both Smoak and Posey hit their ceilings, Posey will be a far more valuable player than Smoak. I know you draft the best player available instead of drafting for need, but if Angel Villalona becomes the player they expect him to be the Giants might have had a dilemma in a couple of years.
Brian Sabean's new dad: Firm believer in corporal punishment
by rxmeister on Jun 6, 2008 6:36 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
it will also be alot easier for the Giants to fill a hole at first base then it would be to fill a hole behind the plate via the trade or FA market.
This seems to be conventional wisdom, but I think it’s completely wrong. Sluggers with little defensive value are hugely overpriced in baseball.
A couple of years ago, the Giants signed a middle-of-the-pack catcher for 3 years/$16 million. How much would it cost to sign a comparable first basemen—a Morneau or Kotchman or Konerko? At least twice as much, I suspect.
by Evan on Jun 6, 2008 8:02 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
but you don't have to sign the overpriced ones
Picking out the biggest-name, highest-priced, most-mediocre FAs to target is how you get the Zito contract. Yes, it’s what you expect from Sabean, but it’s stupid. You could have picked up Frank Thomas at 1B for the league minimum this year, but alas—Sabean lacks the imagination to do that sort of thing. All he’s hitting for Oakland is .319/.417/.516.
For league minimum.
by wcw on Jun 6, 2008 8:13 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Frank Thomas hasn’t played first base regularly in ten years, and he was probably the worst first baseman in the game when he did. He hasn’t played there at all in four years. There may be good cheap solutions out there, but Frank Thomas isn’t one of them.
by Evan on Jun 6, 2008 8:23 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
on this team?
If the Giants had infield defense to match their three-center-fielder outfield, you’d have a point. But they’re starting adequate-but-leaden-gloved Ray Durham, graceful-but-aging Omar Vizquel and oh-that’s-why-they-call-it-the-hot-corner Juse Castillo on the infield. I’d slot Thomas right in there and live with his bad range.
by wcw on Jun 6, 2008 8:33 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don’t know if I could watch Big Frank play 1B every day at this point, and I really have questions if his body could actually do it. That said, didn’t the A’s claim him on waivers, so it’s a moot point anyway?
by tyrannoman on Jun 6, 2008 8:40 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I suspect you’d die with his bad range instead. But Frank Thomas isn’t really the point … Of course you’re right that paying market rates for a Konerko or a Morneau is usually foolish. You get much more bang for the buck by liberating a Dan Johnson or Paul McAnulty instead. My argument is that it’s not any easier to do that at first than at catcher, or anywhere else on the diamond. There’s always a Ramon Castro or Chris Coste sitting around somewhere looking for a chance.
But when you want to pay the premium and get the best - which sometimes you have to do - you’d save a lot of money if you already had Mark Teixeira in your organization and went out to buy Russell Martin rather than the other way around. Right? Teixeira and Martin are probably about equal in baseball value, but if they were on the free agent market at the same time, the slugger would get a lot more money.
by Evan on Jun 6, 2008 8:50 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I do like to get the best
..which is why I mentioned Pujols. But historic talents are fanboy fantasy, so let’s just look at Martin vs Tex. In terms of both wins and dollars I think the preferred strategies are drafting and keeping Martin > drafting and trading Tex > drafting and keeping Tex. It’s precisely because no-defense sluggers can be overvalued that drafting and keeping up-the-middle players is my preference.
Here I have to get back to historic talents, though. I don’t care where a Bonds, Pujols or A-Rod plays. If he’s available in any way, I want him.
by wcw on Jun 6, 2008 9:17 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don’t want to make too much of this, since it’s really just a theoretical issue, but: Stipulate that Smoak and Posey attain their reasonable-upside projections of Teixeira and Martin. Now consider the following catcher/first base combos:
1. The first six years of Posey’s career + a good free-agent first baseman
2. The first six years of Smoak’s career + a good free-agent catcher
The two packages deliver more or less the same production on the field, but the second is going to save you several million dollars that can be spent elsewhere.
Now, once the six years are up, the salary system works against you, in that Smoak will cost more to retain than he will be worth. But I’d cross that bridge when I came to it. And it’s possible (likely, even) that the overvaluing of low-defense sluggers will have ceased by then.
by Evan on Jun 6, 2008 9:51 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Good point about sluggers being overvalued, but I jsut don’t get the Dan Johnson idea. You may be getting more bang for the buck, but it ain’t a lot of bucks or bangs.
by tyrannoman on Jun 6, 2008 9:33 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Dude’s hitting .311/.421/.541 in AAA. He could lose quite a bit in translation back to the majors and still be a useful bat.
by Evan on Jun 6, 2008 9:52 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
True
and JR Phillips raked at AAA, too (sorry JR!). . Some guys are AAAA players, and to me Dan Johnson has proven to be one.
by tyrannoman on Jun 6, 2008 2:25 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I used to think that Phillips raked in AAA, but then I looked up his stats, and they weren’t ever that impressive until he got to Colorado Springs.
Wait, that’s not right. He had about 100 games of AAA bludgeoning in 1994, but that was it. He was never really that good. And look at those stats for his first few seasons! That’s as awful a start to a career as I’ve ever seen.
by Grant on Jun 6, 2008 2:32 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Funny part is, I was going to use Linden as an example, but I like to make fun of JR Phillips. I still think Dan Johnson is an excellent AAA player and not worth a roster spot on a ML team.
by tyrannoman on Jun 6, 2008 2:35 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
That would be interesting.
We would feature the two slowest players in all of baseball with both Thomas and Molina. Talk about clogging up the bases.
by WilliamVanLandingham on Jun 6, 2008 9:43 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
just imagine those two on a double steal! I’d bet they’d get away with it the first tim on pure shock value.
by tyrannoman on Jun 6, 2008 2:26 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
for the record
I too was amazed by the stupidity of the Astros pick, but still (I love using “yeah, but still…” when trying to make a point) that leaves 4 other teams.
by FluLikeSymptoms on Jun 5, 2008 11:17 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Jesus himself
but it seems to me if we passed on Jesus himself as many people seemed to think at the time, then he would have gotten snapped up within the next couple of picks.
Jesus wasn’t that good a hitter. Lifetime OPS+ under 100, unlike Matty and Felipe.
by achiappanza on Jun 5, 2008 11:12 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yep, well
As one of the pro-Smoak street team, I am a tad disappointed. That said, I’ve backed off the ledge and am OK with Posey and absolutely thrilled with the next three picks.
With the first two picks, we got two college position players who are about as sure to have meaningful major league careers as you can get in the draft. So we get a mid-90s Jason Kendall and a Bill Mueller…can you say “All-Star” and “Batting Champ”? (Yes, Smoak is pretty close to a sure thing, too…shut up little voice in my head).
Big props to Barr, who in one draft took a long step toward changing the culture of a team seemingly afraid or unable to draft college bats. As much promise as Bumgarner and Alderson have, this is a franchise that needs to expedite the restocking of the major league hitting cabinet (hwah?). You know what I mean. Don’t pretend you don’t. And, I’ll leave you with some thoughts by Kevin Goldstein of BP from the chat today:
Kevin Goldstein (4:24:28 PM PT): bravoatoc (Tulsa): So, I know we aren’t near being done, but what are your initial views on who had the best draft and who had the worst? Actually who is having the best draft, the Astros ARE having the worst.I haven’t had time to digest it all, but as weird as this sounds. I really like the Giants draft.
Yeah, weird.
Bengie: Like an Aurilia kidney stone, slow-moving and tough to get out.
by juanboy on Jun 5, 2008 11:00 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Players I would like to see taken on Day 2
Eric Thames-OF Pepperdine really advanced bat with good patience at the plate, Athlete
Brett Hunter-SP- Pepperdine throws HARD. mid to upper 90s but battled the injury bug
Cole St. Clair-RP- Rice good talent big lefty reliever
Jack Britton-SP-Middlebury Collge Huge curve ball with a good 12-6 action and uses his change up well
Mitch Harris-SP- Navy – got good stuff, but worry about military commitment
Xavier Scruggs-1b-UNLV- big bat with some pop
by krukkuipandclint on Jun 5, 2008 11:04 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I'm with you on Thames
I love buying low on a guy that is hurt (especially in the 7th round)
by FluLikeSymptoms on Jun 5, 2008 11:18 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Nice list
I would like to see the Giants go for more position players early in Day 2, and then unearth the pitching gems in the later rounds as they have shown talent for in the past. One player that comes to mind who was touted earlier in the year but whose stock has fallen somewhat is Jordan Danks. The tools are still there, just need to be refined.
by baseballjunkie on Jun 6, 2008 12:12 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I would like to see the Giants go for more position players early in Day 2, and then unearth the pitching gems in the later rounds as they have shown talent for in the past.
This seems like the ideal strategy for any team, but especially for the Giants.
Relatively few pitchers were taken at the top of the draft this year, which suggests that other organizations may be catching on to this strategy as well.
by Evan on Jun 6, 2008 8:06 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Thames
I don’t know nothing about nothing inre: these players, but I read some good things on Thames and was surprised to see him go undrafted on the first day. Did he suffer some debilitating injury that I don’t know about?
Noonan. Nooooonan!
by Giant Fan in Singapore on Jun 6, 2008 2:23 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
My buddy has talked to thames
thames said that he will resume work outs 1 month from now, but should be fine.
Go get him Barr
by krukkuipandclint on Jun 6, 2008 7:10 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Mimicking the relationship between Pavlov and his dog, every time Grant writes the word “hope”, Josh reflexively posts this link. (And speaks in the third person, apparently.)
"I been waitin' a long time for this! I been waitin' since the f**kin' amateurs!" --WILL "THE THRILL" CLARK
by Josh from Hollywood on Jun 5, 2008 11:10 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
OMG HE'S GOING TO KILL HIMSELF LIKE BROOKS!!!!
WAIT, WHAT DOES HE WANT THAT GUN FOR?????
Phew. It all works out.
Love that damn movie.
by Grant on Jun 5, 2008 11:11 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The best, Jerry. The best!
"I been waitin' a long time for this! I been waitin' since the f**kin' amateurs!" --WILL "THE THRILL" CLARK
by Josh from Hollywood on Jun 6, 2008 12:54 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I like it so far....
the position players anyway. Posey looks like a future all-star, Gillaspie as a solid contributer (who will post good OBP’s to make up for his relative lack of power to the position), and Kieschnick and Crawford should be at least good bench options, if not decent starters
by baetown415 on Jun 5, 2008 11:19 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Kieschnick
reminds me a bunch of hunter pence for some reason. awkward swing, good speed, surprising pop.
hopefully he comes without the douche-iness.
BROCK BOND LIKES HIS MARTINIS PUNCHED IN THE FACE, NOT STIRRED.
by SloIsLonelyForTheOrange on Jun 5, 2008 11:31 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I believe douche-iness is acceptable in reverse proportion to one’s production.
See: Bonds, Barry L.
"I been waitin' a long time for this! I been waitin' since the f**kin' amateurs!" --WILL "THE THRILL" CLARK
by Josh from Hollywood on Jun 6, 2008 12:58 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
hopfully without the humpback, too. Never seen such a young guy look so much like Igor in the field.
by tyrannoman on Jun 6, 2008 8:44 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
So what do the Giants' top 10 prospects look like now?
Goldstein said he’d rate Posey over Anvil by a “nosey” (har har) but where would Gillaspie fit into our top prospects for now? Obviously this is ridiculously early, but speculation is neat!
Just throwing this out there…
1. Posey
2. Villalona
3. MadBum
4. Sosa
5. Alderson
6. Schierholz
7. Gillaspie
8. Noonan
9. Tanner
10. Fairley?
I’m not too good at this, any idea where the new kids fit in?
Adopted Giant: Travis Denker. Good?
by scotterduder on Jun 5, 2008 11:35 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Schierholtz lower.
by North Side Chicago Expatriate Giants Fan on Jun 6, 2008 7:52 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’m ecstatic that we picked Crawford. I just hope he pans out for us.
Proud adoptive parent of Tim Alderson.
by Anticon23 on Jun 5, 2008 11:35 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I’m more or less ecstatic about the draft – the Giants took the available player I wanted them to take most at both picks and the next two prompted these comments from two people whose opinions I respect a great deal when it comes to prospects:
Kevin Goldstein: Believe it or not, the Giants are kicking ass and taking names.
Bryan Smith: The Giants pop Brandon Crawford here in the fourth, and I think it’s a fabulous selection. Crawford is incredibly raw for someone his age, but he has some really nice tools. After going for sure bets in Buster Posey and Conor Gillaspie, Crawford is the perfect type of complement. Throw in Roger Kieschnick, who was once considered a first round right fielder, and it’s possible - not likely, but possible - the Giants just filled half their future.
Even with the Rangers absolute steal of Smoak (I still liked Posey better at #5) it can be argued that the Giants had the best draft of any team this year.
Barry Zito: Mike Hampton with a guitar
by JakeS on Jun 5, 2008 11:41 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
You can't
ground into a quadruple play, silly. There are only three outs in an inning!
by SnowLeopard on Jun 5, 2008 11:49 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I hate to nitpick, but it’s technically possible to ground into a quadruple play. Observe…
Situation: Bonds on first, Williams on second, Clark on third, Aurilia at the plate, no outs.
Aurilia grounds to shortstop. They throw home to force Clark, then to first to force Aurilia (two outs). Bonds takes too wide a turn around second, so the first baseman throws behind him and they get him into a rundown. Before they can tag him out, though, Williams has rushed around third and charged home to, apparently, score a run. However, the opposing team notices that Williams missed third base on his mad dash. After tagging out Bonds, everyone stays on the field, they appeal to third base, and Williams is called out for a quadruple play.
www.sportingnews.com/darnott
by David Arnott on Jun 6, 2008 5:37 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I can totally see this happening. Good thing we don’t have those bums Clark, Bonds, and Williams anymore.
I was THE GREATEST OF ALL TIME (for 3 days in 1995).
by Mike Benjamin Hit King on Jun 6, 2008 9:57 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Wait, two good drafts in a row?
Yeah I know it’s only the first day. But the disproportionate value of the first means I don’t feel like waiting.
Seriously, two good drafts in a row? This might be a trend? The Giants can has farm system?
Only 913 games until the end of Zito's contract
by thehavenot on Jun 6, 2008 12:01 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
2007 was not a very good draft
As I posted in the draft-day thread: http://www.mccoveychronicles.com/2008/6/5/546737/open-draft-day-vii#6602755
2007 was a real disappointment to me. A good draft last year would have given us Heyward, Porcello, Brackman or Smoker, Noonan (the year’s one good pick), Justin Jackson, and Nick Hagadone. Instead, we have half or less of that sort of potential.
by wcw on Jun 6, 2008 6:59 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
My ideal draft matched your almost right down the line, but at this point you can’t argue that it would be an improvement. Bumgarner is dominating the Sally League to exactly the same degree Heyward is. Alderson has been a disappointment, but Porcello has been a much greater one. Brackman and Smoker haven’t accomplished anything more than Wendell Fairley has. Noonan is outplaying Justin Jackson. The choice of Jackson Williams over Canham will always rankle, but whatever.
by Evan on Jun 6, 2008 8:10 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Alderson is a disappointment?
Your 2011 SF Giants: the 2008 Augusta Greenjackets!
by Lyle on Jun 6, 2008 8:15 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
A mild disappointment, yeah. 51 strikeouts in 63 innings just isn’t very impressive in A ball, no matter how young he is. He’s getting better lately.
Porcello’s performance has been much worse, though: 36 k’s in the almost the same number of innings.
They’ll probably both be fine, and of course Porcello is still the better prospect, but if I were a Tigers fan, I’d be nervous.
by Evan on Jun 6, 2008 8:27 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Seriously disagree on Alderson
A K/9 of 7.3, while being 4-5 years younger than his competition in a hitter’s league, in his first full season of pro ball is not, by any stretch of the imagination, any degree of “disappointment” unless you thought Alderson was going to be a #1 starter for the Giants in 2010. Sorry, but your expectations have to be completely out of whack to be in any way disappointed with his performance so far.
Delaying the disappointment: I adopt Hector Sanchez because he's only 17.
by tedfordfan on Jun 6, 2008 8:44 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not expectations, hopes. Alderson was a high draft pick and had a brief-but-stellar pro debut, so yeah, I had high hopes, though not really that he would be a #1 starter in two years.
And I still have high hopes. But a K/9 of 7.3 really isn’t that good, especially when coupled with disappointing control. Look up the numbers of the better starting pitchers in baseball; you won’t find many that had a weaker K rate for long in the lower minors, no matter how old they were.
by Evan on Jun 6, 2008 9:59 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Missing the larger point
He’s 18 years old. He’s 4 or 5 years younger then the hitters he’s facing. He has 2 months of professional experience and is facing batters that have 2-3 years of professional experience on average. Take that into consideration when you look at his numbers, which are objectively solid, but, as you say, not spectacular.
The rate at which 1st round draft picks fail to make any kind of impact on the ML level is something like 50%. It’s much higher for the second half of the first round.
Despite these enormous factors weighing against him, Alderson is producing, which is a major victory. We should be ecstatic right now.
If his numbers never improve over time, then we should perhaps worry. But the absurdly early returns even show improvement:
April: 27 IP / 17 K
May: 31.1 IP / 30K
Walks and hits allowed are increasing in May, which is a concern, but that’s expected. He’s learning. I’m actually happy he’s getting knocked around a bit. I’m anxious to see how he responds. If he goes through a rough patch and pitches stronger down the stretch, that’s not just a good thing, that’s a friggin’ awesome thing, because it shows he learned, adjusted and became a better pitcher.
I have similar views for Culberson & Tanner. Culberson had a putrid April, and then a decent May while being significantly younger and less experienced than many of the pitchers he is facing. Progress – that’s good. Be hopeful. Tanner got seriously roughed up for a stretch of 4 or 5 games and worked through it, putting up several quality outings in a row. Hopefully he grew by working through the rough patch and became a better pitcher. Wait and see. But so far so good.
You’re right that Alderson’s numbers aren’t mind-blowing. I just don’t think that given the surrounding circumstances of those numbers we have any reason to be concerned about him.
Delaying the disappointment: I adopt Hector Sanchez because he's only 17.
by tedfordfan on Jun 6, 2008 10:46 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree with pretty much all of that, and I’m still a huge Alderson fanboy. Remember, this started off as me defending the 2007 draft.
by Evan on Jun 6, 2008 10:54 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well, huh...
you were, indeed. Imagine that… :)
Delaying the disappointment: I adopt Hector Sanchez because he's only 17.
by tedfordfan on Jun 6, 2008 10:56 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Porcello has a pretty insane groundball ratio though. More K’s would be nice, but it’s not the only determining factor of how well he’s performing.
Adopted Giant: Travis Denker. Good?
by scotterduder on Jun 6, 2008 9:51 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
see also
http://www.projectprospect.com/article/2008/05/30/sullymetrics-dominance-factor
Certainly no be-all, but by that measure Porcello is outperforming Bumgarner.
by wcw on Jun 6, 2008 11:30 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
nice link
Cahill is beastly so far. Makes it even more impressive that San Jose roughed him up a little bit.
Adopted Giant: Travis Denker. Good?
by scotterduder on Jun 6, 2008 1:38 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Oh come now. That is, without exaggeration, the single silliest stat I have ever seen.
by Evan on Jun 6, 2008 8:41 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
the silliest?
It’s pretty silly, especially the age adjustment, but anything that has Cahill #1 works for me.
by wcw on Jun 6, 2008 9:19 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
always take the bat over the arm
I’d trade Bumgarner plus any B-level prospect in the system for Heyward right now.
Neither Alderson nor Porcello is a disappointment to me. Alderson is top-10 in the Cal League in FIP against much older competition. Porcello is not, but he’s also young and is sporting a 66% GB rate. While Alderson is outperforming now, I still expect Porcello to be the better bet long-term.
Smoker’s the one I wanted over Fairley, though I saw Brackman as the next Brian Wilson, needing surgery but with real potential. Smoker struck out every third batter he faced in short-season ball last year; I wouldn’t call that less than Fairley.
The Giants could have had Noonan and Jackson. They took Williams instead of Jackson.
I’d forgotten about Canham. Yeah, he’d have been an even better pick than Hagadone (what can I say, I like ground balls), and much, much better than Culberson.
Now, I don’t call 2007 a bad draft. The Giants got a lot of talent. It was, however, a disappointment, considering how much talent they left on the board in that first round.
by wcw on Jun 6, 2008 8:30 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Alderson disappointment???
You are nuts Evan, Alderson is pitching outstanding.
by SF Fan on Jun 6, 2008 10:29 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
What you wanted would have been an unbelievably fantastic draft
What the Giants had was a good draft. Your standards for a good draft are insanely high (and loaded with hindsight, it seems).
I don’t like appealing to authority, so of course I am about to do just that. But many people who do this sort of stuff for a living felt the Giants had one of the best, if not the best, drafts last year.
As for myself, I’m happy with Bumgarner, Alderson and Noonan. I also still hold out hope for Fairley, Culberson (as bad a pick as he was), and D’Allesio. Pretty good, I’d say.
Also, the Giants couldn’t have gotten Heyward, Porcello and Brackman. Heyward 10, Porcello 22 but Brackman went before the Giants’ third pick. Same with Smoker, I believe (I must admit I’m too busy to look it up at the moment.)
As for your complaints about Jackson and Hagadone (or others) instead of Culberson and Williams. They are legitimate. Those two picks weren’t very good.
The Giants still had a good draft.
Only 913 games until the end of Zito's contract
by thehavenot on Jun 6, 2008 10:56 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
hindsight, my left nut
http://www.mccoveychronicles.com/2007/6/6/122010/0646#1195901
http://www.mccoveychronicles.com/2007/6/5/16427/10788#1194764
I was wrong about which players would be available (Mills was, LaPorta wasn’t), but I was right about which players I loved (LaPorta and, especially, Heyward).
Porcello was a pre-draft consensus talent who dropped on bonus demands. It didn’t take a genius to consider drafting him at #22. Smoker had in some predraft boards been seen going to the Giants #10. When he was still available at #29, again it didn’t take a genius to consider picking him. At that point, on Williams and Culberson, I think we’re all agreed the team punted.
So who would have been available at #10, #22 and #29? Taking Heyward at #10 leaves Bumgarner available, and the Braves without a pick. Maybe the take Porcello #14, but I doubt it. So Porcello is available at #22, Alderson stays on the board and Detroit has a pick. Would they have taken Smoker? Maybe. If they didn’t, however, Smoker would have been available at #29, and voila: the team’s got Heyward, Porcello and Smoker.
by wcw on Jun 6, 2008 11:15 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Fine, no hindsight
None of that changes the Giants draft into a bad one. Maybe it could have been better. I’m not going to complain about the Giants first four picks, however. I’m happy with three of them and we still haven’t seen anything particularly good or bad from the fourth.
Hence, good draft.
Only 913 games until the end of Zito's contract
by thehavenot on Jun 6, 2008 11:57 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yes, a good draft
But two things:
(1) This after years and years of bad drafts. Let’s remember who’s responsible for those bad drafts. If your incorrigible son stops stealing hubcaps for a week, that doesn’t make him an altar boy; he just didn’t screw up for a week. Other people’s sons are getting into Stanford or helping earthquake victims in China.
(2) Last year the Giants had a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity, with 6 of the top 51 picks. The Brewers had 6 of the top 62 picks this year – that’s the closest I can find. And we all knew that before the season started. They couldn’t budget accordingly? So a couple of signability picks? Opportunity just doesn’t come knocking like that very often.
So yes, it was a good result to get Noonan, Alderson, and Bumgarner. Much better than we’ve done in many, many years. But it could have been, and should have been, much better. On paper that is, since there are no guaranteed results. Pundits should have been praising the Giants far and wide last year, not merely agreeing that they did well.
And I think the same about the Brewers this year. Jake Odorizzi, Brett Lawrie, and Seth Lintz were very good picks. Evan Frederickson of USF apparently blew them away in a private demonstration, so he’s understandable too. If one of Cutter Dykstra and Cody Adams shows us something, they will have taken proper advantage of their position. We’ll see.
Your 2011 SF Giants: the 2008 Augusta Greenjackets!
by Lyle on Jun 7, 2008 12:16 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
the thing is
NO ONE, not even the yankees or red sox spend that much on the draft. i would have loved to have drafted those players, it just doesnt work.
that would be equal to in this draft one team swooping in and drafting tim melville, alex meyer, isaac galloway, sonny gray, daniel webb, etc…..all the guys who fell big time. while teams like them, they just wont spend that much money on ONE draft.
LiNcEcuM and cAiN R STUDS
by z4 landshark on Jun 6, 2008 3:06 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
why not?
Even with Porcello’s major-league deal and bonus, the players I’d have picked in the first round would have cost the team $12M, instead of the $6.5M they actually spent. That’s real money, but for a bad team, it’s money well spent. The difference is less than they’re wasting on Dave Roberts. Bud Selig already hates the team. 2007 would have been the perfect opportunity really to go for it.
by wcw on Jun 6, 2008 4:06 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I believe here is where we appropriately bring up the Zito contract.
//checkmate//
Your 2011 SF Giants: the 2008 Augusta Greenjackets!
by Lyle on Jun 7, 2008 12:18 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Being in SD
I’ve seen the value of a guy like Tony Gwynn and the downright peskiness of a hitter who’ll get the two out single and foul off eight or nine pitches to rope a gapper. Gillaspie…if he can be a Gwynn-type with a bit more power (and none of the girth…ever!) would play very well in our ballpark.
it's always noonan somewhere
by sectionop92 on Jun 6, 2008 12:01 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I think anybody would be just fine if they were a Gwynn type hitter.
Hell, I’ll take considerably less than that and still be happy.
My Dave Righetti is better than your Dave Righetti.
by howtheyscored on Jun 6, 2008 12:15 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
+1
Proud new mom of Mr. Buster Posey.
by GiantsFanInExile on Jun 6, 2008 2:02 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
overall, not disappointing, but not exciting either.
As a Smoaker, the issue isn’t that Posey is a bad pick, it’s just that Smoak would have been a better pick. I don’t know if that’s actually true, but as someone who is keen on the Giants having a power hitting first baseman as soon as possible, it was kinda disappointing to see Posey get tabbed.
As for the Gallaspie pick, I don’t mind having Bill Mueller again, but the team needs to add some significant power if it wants to win in the long run (and be more exciting). Third base is a position that a lot of power resides and if power production isn’t going to come from there, it’s gotta come from somewhere else like SS or 2B. When we had Mueller, we also had Aurilia and Kent up the middle and they provided significant power, so the power outages at 3rd and 1st didn’t hurt as much (we also had that guy in LF).
But, I like the Kieschnick and Crawford picks for the power potential they provide.
so far, it seems like a solid draft that could really pay off if the Kieschnick and Crawford both pan out.
Proud adopted parent of future big league slugger Thomas Neal
by nostocksjustbonds on Jun 6, 2008 12:09 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
1B, 1B, 1B...
..I don’t like drafting at 1B unless I think I have Albert Pujols’s bat and defense. Smoak might have his defense, but he doesn’t have a bat that strong. He’ll be good, a legitimate major-league first baseman, but I prefer the premium position and athleticism of Posey.
Now, at #11, where TX got him, I love Smoak.
by wcw on Jun 6, 2008 7:03 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
We won't really know...
how good this draft is for a few years. And we can’t really judge it completely until the principals’ careers are well underway. Perhaps I am subconsciously trying to justify the pick, but when all is said and done I could see Posey having a longer, more productive career than Smoak, who could have a few monster seasons and then tail off. I believe Sickels and Goldstein had predicted Smoak would drop and they were right. Five teams passed on Smoak after the Giants did… maybe it was his most recent poor showing at the Cape… something about Smoak may have spooked a number of teams. We’ll just have to see how things play out.
I’m actually pretty pleased with the picks thus far. And from the comments from analysts it seems experts are pretty impressed with the Giants’ draft so far. At least from these early picks it seems to me that the Giants could be targetting gap power type hitters, perhaps more suited to AT&T Park than pure power hitters. These are not punch and judy hitters, mind you, since they project to have some HR power. It also seems they are seeking Gamers and the proverbial “baseball player”. And they are taking some chances on high upside players, something they had to do to infuse their system with some talent after a history of drafting conservatively: safe, older, organizational filler types of players. Let’s hope for more good drafting tomorrow, er, later today.
by baseballjunkie on Jun 6, 2008 12:45 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
agreed
I would imagine that Barr et al are aware that the skills of Posey and Gallaspie might work especially well at AT&T, where power hitters generally don’t fare well (with a couple obvious exceptions). I’m very pleased to have high OBP guys with some power. Wouldn’t have minded Smoak, but I think the organization has drafted very wisely this year.
by Duelling Brandos on Jun 6, 2008 1:40 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I read somewhere that Smoak hit only .220 for Team USA last year, and he seemed to panic when things got tough for him. This might be a reason that a few teams decided to pass.
Brian Sabean's new dad: Firm believer in corporal punishment
by rxmeister on Jun 6, 2008 6:42 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don’t think there’s anything malign or mysterious about the way Smoak dropped. There’s a long tradition of slugging first basemen being underdrafted. Like wcw above, baseball teams like tools, athleticism, and the good end of the defensive spectrum. Thus far it usually hasn’t been a wise choice, but it’s not a surprise when teams make it.
by Evan on Jun 6, 2008 8:14 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
i talked to some friends at UCLA
who are still in good touch with crawford and they are saying that he doesnt want to be paid like a 4th rounder, so signability could be a problem. coming out of high school he told scouts (he had lunch with scott boras) that if he didnt make at least a mil he was going to go to ucla. i donno what exactly he wants now but im hoping the giants pay up because if he goes back to ucla and becomes as good as people thought he originally would be, then we are goin to be kicking ourselves for letting the dodgers draft him in the first round next year.
proud father of the newly acquired Brandon Crawford..
by Azmanz on Jun 6, 2008 1:02 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
i hope they sign all their picks too, but unrealistic demands from lower round picks can start off a chain reaction. if you give a million to a fourth round pick, what are your first three picks going to ask for??
Brian Sabean's new dad: Firm believer in corporal punishment
by rxmeister on Jun 6, 2008 6:44 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
of course he doesn't
..it’s the team’s job to pay up if he’s a worthwhile talent. Better to see dozens more above-slot bonuses than one more Zito contract.
by wcw on Jun 6, 2008 7:01 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
he actually has some negotiating room
given that he had such a bad year he really could return to UCLA and hope to have a better year and get picked a lot higher next year. Yes, he will have no negotiating room as a senior but let’s say he goes at the end of the first round or supplemental round (as he was projected to coming into this season) he can just sign for slot and get a lot more than a 4th rounder would.
by FluLikeSymptoms on Jun 6, 2008 10:09 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well, I was a bit :( when I found out it was Posey and not Smoak this morning, but looking at the whole draft, I’m really quite happy.
Matt Cain: He'll save children, but not the Dodger children.
by jponry on Jun 6, 2008 6:48 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Gillaspie
My buddy saw a lot of him with the Shockers (best team name in college baseball, by the way) and said the guy just looked like a big league hitter, spraying line drives throughout the field with authority. He also thinks that Gillaspie could develop some power as he gets older, but that’s based only on a hunch.
One interesting note: he has reservations about his ability to stay at third, citing a middling arm and range. He’s got good instincts (they play on a weird fast turf at Wichita State) that may counterbalance that, but it might mean a move to second in the future.
My gut? Mark Loretta.
Orange Black and Blue - The Purgatory of the Giants Lost
by shn155 on Jun 6, 2008 7:08 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
If he doesn’t have the range for third, he’s not going to have the range for second.
by Evan on Jun 6, 2008 8:15 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
but if it's just the arm, second is fine
The man did mention range, but he mentioned the arm before it and noted good instincts. Though I doubt you’re wrong, alas. Hope springs eternal.
by wcw on Jun 6, 2008 8:36 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think Keith Law mentioned 2B as an eventual possibility as well.
Idolizing Robb Nen since 2002...
by Smoke on the Water on Jun 6, 2008 10:10 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’m thrilled. I totally understand why people wanted Smoak, but my three favorite prospect experts - Jim Callis, Keith Law and Kevin Goldstein - all rated Posey as the better prospect.
Gillaspie was the guy I was hoping for at pick at No. 37, and we got him. Just because he’s a polished player doesn’t mean he lacks upside.
Kieschnick was a nice way find in the third round, as he gave us another Top 50 talent. Brandon Crawford is a great risk in the fourth round. He was considered a Top 30 prospect after his freshman and sophomore years. Sure, he’ll probably amount to something along the lines of Brian Bocock, but he’s got plenty of upside, too.
And finally, it’s clear that the Giants went for the best talent available rather than go cheap. Posey, Gillaspie and Crawford are going to want above-slot bonuses.
I’m hoping we sign all these guys. John Barr did a great job as far as I’m concerned.
by Dan from NM on Jun 6, 2008 8:08 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
On the other hand . . .
Sure, Posey is a great pick, but:
1. We have Sandoval in the system already;
2. We have nothing in the system for 1B; and most of all
3. The pick goes to hell if they can’t sign Posey, after passing up Smoak.
Sorry for being contrarian here, but if they can’t sign Posey or if he sucks too much money from them that should go elsewhere, then they made a mistake. They knew about the signability challenge before they drafted him, and also knew there were no such problems with anyone else they could have drafted at the time.
Lincecum's pitching - Grab some pine, meat!
by Buck Henry on Jun 6, 2008 11:02 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I'll counterpoint ya
1. Sandoval still has a way to go and if we do sign Posey and both of them turn out to be really good catchers, you could shift Pablo to first - a position that he sometimes plays - and hope he can hit enough or keep him behind the plate, where his value will be the highest, and trade him.
2. Theoretically, first base is the easiest position to fill. The Giants have had a heck of a time finding league average production from first base, but they should be able to find someone (Hello, optimism). Sandoval could be a backup plan for first base, the jury is out if he’ll hit enough for that position since you really need offense from you first base position.
3. I’m 99.99% sure that Posey will sign and probably somewhere between $6-9M. I would be really surprised if he gets $10M. This is his payday and he has nothing to gain if he heads back to college and everything to lose. Is it really worth $2-3M extra that he might get if he goes back to college, rakes, and renters the draft in ‘08? As it stands, he’ll get $6M and maybe a little more. I think when the Giants took Posey, they were prepared to pay him as he was their 2nd best player on their list, only behind Alvarez.
by xanthan on Jun 6, 2008 11:14 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Theoretically, first base is the easiest position to fill. The Giants have had a
> heck of a time finding league average production from first base, but they
> should be able to find someone (Hello, optimism).
As I’ve posted before, the problem is not that there aren’t peripheral rakers like Carlos Pena, Dimitri Young, Jack Cust, Hee-Seop Choi, Dan Johnson, etc around each year. There are plenty guys like that around each year, available for not much. It’s more that Sabean seems to think that 1B is a key defensive position, and that you want a glove man, maybe a former middle infielder, there.
by SnowLeopard on Jun 6, 2008 2:06 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
1. If a scouting director factors Pablo Sandoval into his first-round decision, that scouting director should be fired. Sandoval is shaky behind the plate (heck, he’s DH’d for a good amount of his games), and he’s had one great month and one good month in A-ball this year. If he does stick behind the plate, great, but that isn’t something that should change a draft board.
2. The #1 prospect is a 1B. That still shouldn’t have factored into the decision, but Angel Villalona’s presence is more of an issue to drafting a 1B than Sandoval’s is to drafting a C.
3. If the Giants don’t sign Posey, they’ll get the #5 pick next year as compensation. I would rather sign Posey, but it wouldn’t be the end of the world.
by Grant on Jun 6, 2008 11:45 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
3. If the Giants don’t sign Posey, they’ll get the #5 pick next year as compensation.
How does that exactly work out? Does that mean SF would pick before the team that has the 2009 #5 pick or after? This could also then mean (if other picks did not sign their pick) that the pick could realistically be from 5 to 10 overall.
by wilriv21 on Jun 6, 2008 12:06 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
they would get the pick right AFTER #5
they call it pick 5a, so really it’s actually the 6th pick. MLB just changed this rule last year to allow for exact compensation like that (it used to be that you would just receive a supplemental pick). I would be disappointed if we don’t sign Posey, but getting the 6th pick next year and having 2 of the top seven or so would make it not such a big deal.
by FluLikeSymptoms on Jun 6, 2008 2:35 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Huh?
Grant, I’m confused. Are you saying that they shouldn’t factor Sandoval into the Posey decision, but should have factored Villalona into the Smoak decision? At least Sandoval already plays the position we’re talking about, whereas Villalona is only eating his way towards 1B. And there can be little doubt that Smoak would be a better long-term 1B than Villalona defensively and perhaps even offensively.
And xanthan, I am nowhere near as certain as you are that they will sign Posey, and signing him in the upper end of the range you cite is a terrible misdirection of resources away from other uses when Smoak would never have cost that much or caused that problem.
I’ll agree to disagree with both of you guys.
Lincecum's pitching - Grab some pine, meat!
by Buck Henry on Jun 6, 2008 12:25 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think you’re misreading, but because it’s kind of unclear. I think that Grant is saying IF – if – you have to play the don’t draft because of a guy you already have game, then Villalona is a much better candidate for that game than Sandoval.
Grant’s still obviously not advocating that strategy. I think he’s just saying “if that’s what is happening, this is how it would be.”
My Dave Righetti is better than your Dave Righetti.
by howtheyscored on Jun 6, 2008 12:35 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Unclear?
Clearly, Grant was saying Villalona being at 1B shouldn’t have factored in. You know how I know? Because that’s what he wrote:
“That still shouldn’t have factored into the decision”
"I been waitin' a long time for this! I been waitin' since the f**kin' amateurs!" --WILL "THE THRILL" CLARK
by Josh from Hollywood on Jun 6, 2008 1:38 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Unclear only because of the “but” part of it.
I agree with you, though.
My Dave Righetti is better than your Dave Righetti.
by howtheyscored on Jun 6, 2008 1:54 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
This has been "Semantics Corner With Howie & Josh"
Tune is next week when we’ll discuss what the definition of “is” is, and try to figure out just how much “due diligence” must occur before it constitutes “kicking the tires”.
"I been waitin' a long time for this! I been waitin' since the f**kin' amateurs!" --WILL "THE THRILL" CLARK
by Josh from Hollywood on Jun 6, 2008 2:03 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Exclusive sneak preview: lots!
My Dave Righetti is better than your Dave Righetti.
by howtheyscored on Jun 6, 2008 2:23 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I already subscribe to their newsletter – at the end of the day, it’s fantastic!
Your 2011 SF Giants: the 2008 Augusta Greenjackets!
by Lyle on Jun 7, 2008 12:22 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hee
Butt
If you like things that are funny, perhaps you will enjoy ChatterBalks Dot Com?
by groug on Jun 6, 2008 11:40 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
And xanthan, I am nowhere near as certain as you are that they will sign Posey, and signing him in the upper end of the range you cite is a terrible misdirection of resources away from other uses when Smoak would never have cost that much or caused that problem.
Posey has no reason to go back to college and risk losing $6M. Sorry, but he’ll sign. Why are you so uncertain? Because of his pre-draft demands? Because that’s called bluffing.
And why is it a “terrible misdirection of resources” when Posey was the Giants #2 guy? He was the BPA and they went with him. For whatever reason, Smoak wasn’t #2. A “terrible misdirection of resources” would have been overdrafting someone, and Posey isn’t an overdraft at #5.
by xanthan on Jun 6, 2008 1:43 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Keith Law says Giants had the best 1st day
Jason (Palo Alto, CA): KLaw, great chats! Also stellar coverage of the draft, enjoyed it very much! Would you rate the Giants as having one of the better drafts this year since they were able to get 2 players that were rated in your top 20? Also, can you give a little insight on SS Crawford from UCLA? Thanks again!
SportsNation Keith Law: (2:31 PM ET ) I rated their day one the best overall. Crawford’s a good defensive shortstop who can’t hit. He should play in the big leagues, though.
by WTF on Jun 6, 2008 11:37 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Crawford’s a good defensive shortstop who can’t hit.
Well, that’s a relief. We’ve been running dangerously low on those. September call-up?
by Evan on Jun 6, 2008 11:43 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
In all seriousness, if Crawford is considering going back to school in hopes of getting a better bonus next year, getting drafted by the Giants should change his mind. There isn’t an organization in baseball that’s liable to make him a big-league starter more swiftly.
by Evan on Jun 6, 2008 12:02 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Keith Law is really convinced Crawford can't hit
I read his chats regularly and being a UCLA guy the Crawford stuff always stuck out to me, he has consistently said things like “good field no hit guy.” I have read some other stuff (sorry no specific examples come to mind) that are a little less harsh and say things like “very raw as a hitter” “has a long way to go as a hitter.” Clearly it is a major question whether or not he will ever be able to hit, but he’s a big kid that has above average power and speed for a SS, I think there is a chance he could develop into an adequate hitter (ringing endorsement there!)
by FluLikeSymptoms on Jun 6, 2008 2:42 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
eh… we took solid guys in rounds 1-3 who all have a reasonably good chance to be decent major league hitters. By round four, the fact that Sabean just got a guy who can definitely field one of the most difficult positions on the diamond but may or may not ever be able to hit… I’m more than ok with that risk. Actually, I think Crawford was my favorite pick of the draft (though it’s a tough fight against Gillaspie).
Idolizing Robb Nen since 2002...
by Smoke on the Water on Jun 8, 2008 2:57 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Some more Law on Crawford
Chris, Harrisonburg, VA: Hi Klaw, on the topic of UCLA’s Brandon Crawford, I thought he had a little offensive upside? I know he struggled in Cape Cod.
SportsNation Keith Law: (2:59 PM ET ) I took some heat from readers for omitting Crawford from my top 60 list this fall, but the guy didn’t hit his last two years in school or on the Cape last summer.
by wilriv21 on Jun 6, 2008 12:11 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Jason Varitek might be a good comp, but that was almost 15 years ago, and Varitek wasn’t quite as heralded as Posey is right now on either side of the ball.
Varitek and Posey are a great comp. Here’s Tek’s baseball cube trivia:
He played mainly third base at Lake Brantley High School in the late 80s and 1990.He was a 3-time All-American and member of the 4th-place United States Baseball Team at the 1992 Olympics in Barcelona.
Varitek was the winner of Baseball America’s College Player of the Year in 1993 and College Baseball’s Golden Spikes Award in 1994 while at Georgia Tech, where he was a teammate of Jay Payton and Nomar Garciaparra; both of whom he played with on the Boston Red Sox. His number 33 is the only number retired by Georgia Tech and he is a member of the Cape Cod League Hall of Fame.
Sound familiar?
2008: A Brooks Wallace Award Preseason Watch List candidate…Collegiate Baseball first team, preseason All-American and NCBWA third team, preseason All-American.Golden Spikes Award finalist: 2008 ACC Player of the Year Buster Posey led the NCAA in batting average (.472), on-base percentage (.572) and slugging percentage (.908). An accomplished pitcher as well, the junior led Florida State in saves (6) and did not give up an earned run in eight appearances. Posey was named ESPN Academic All-American of the Year, and he was a member of the 2004 USA Baseball 18U National Team.
by Ed Jew on Jun 6, 2008 12:53 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Varitek and Posey are a great comp. Here’s Tek’s baseball cube trivia
Mea culpa. I was going off of Varitek’s draft position, but he must have slipped because of bonus-related demands.
by Grant on Jun 6, 2008 1:03 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Gillaspie/Posey putting on a clinic
in the Super Regional game 1 between the Shockers and Seminoles.
Gillaspie is 2/4 with a 3 run HR
Posey is 1/2 with a solo shot
by Giants_Longhorns_Fan on Jun 6, 2008 1:24 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I went home for lunch, turned the game on and within a few minutes saw our future 3b show his lack of power by blasting an outside pitch opposite field for a 3 run homer.
by WTF on Jun 6, 2008 2:03 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
As far as the 2 first round picks go, I’m stoked. I’m watching the wichita-fsu game now, and both players look pretty solid, Gillaspie in particular. As far as hitting goes, I think we can appreciate that we drafted guys who are primarily hit-for-average players, considering our park. Also, I’m pretty encouraged by the fact that Gillaspie was the cape cod mvp last summer, where they use wood bats.
If it were me, I think I would’ve taken Posey over Smoak because after the money we put into Villalona, it would be stupid to draft someone expensive to have him leapfrog Villa. Also, I dunno of Jackson Williams has the bat to cut it in the majors. The main criticism of Posey that I’ve heard so far is his inexperience behind the dish. Frankly, I don’t think this will be a huge problem. Assuming we sign him, he could be up as early as next year (maybe not on opening day) and learn from Molina (if he isn’t traded). Even so, he would be catching for Cain, Lincecum, and Sanchez, who are all young arms, meaning that Bochy or Rags would be calling the pitches from the dugout, allowing Posey to learn along with them.
The 2008 Giants: Think 2005 Rockies with a payroll twice as big and half as much talent.
by BCsteve on Jun 6, 2008 1:50 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
scouting
I don’t know a huge amount about pitching mechanics, and I know far less about hitting mechanics. Still, from the limited videos I’ve seen of Posey, especially the MLB.com video, I have not been especially impressed with his swing. It’s kind of long, it seems to me.
I wonder, is the main reason for the general pessimism about his power potential due to his low homer total in previous years, or have some people spotted some power-sapping mechanical flaw? Otherwise, despite my general impression for his swing, those are some very nice numbers.
Less arm, more talk. Raisingcain is a GAMER.
Adopted Giant: Henry Sosa
by raisingcain on Jun 6, 2008 4:06 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

by 

















