Community Mock Draft: Third Pick
by jcb9 on May 24, 2009 5:40 PM PDT
28 comments
#1: Stephen Strasburg RHP, San Diego State University (Washington Nationals)
#2: Dustin Ackley OF/1B, University of North Carolina (Seattle Mariners)
Who will the San Diego Padres draft with the #3 pick?
FYI: I added Alex White, who I meant to put on the list for the #2 pick. Again, there's a Write-In Vote option. If you select that, please explain who you want to pick. If there's anyone you feel should be added to the voting for the next pick, please let me know.
Aaron Crow RHP, Fort Worth Cats
Kentrail Davis OF, University of Tennessee
Kyle Gibson RHP, University of Missouri
Mychal Givens SS, Jefferson High School (Florida)
Grant Green SS, University of Southern California
Tyler Matzek LHP, Capistrano Valley High School (California)
Matt Purke RHP, Klein High School (Texas)
Tanner Scheppers RHP, Saint Paul Saints
Donavon Tate OF, Cartersville High School (Georgia)
Zack Wheeler RHP, East Paulding High School (Georgia)
Alex White RHP, University of North Carolina
This FanPost is reader-generated, and it does not necessarily reflect the views of McCovey Chronicles. If the author uses filler to achieve the minimum word requirement, a moderator may edit the FanPost for his or her own amusement.
0 recs |
28 comments
Email
Print
Comments
Donavan Tate
Even though Towers has been scouting pitching believe the new ownership and rebuilding Padres go with the high ceiling HSer.
by wilriv21 on May 24, 2009 5:51 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Tate’s name has already been spelled three ways in this post alone. Oops!
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that pie > cake, that Bochy is endowed by his creator with certain undeniable traits, that among these are veteran man-love, a gigantic skull, and the pursuit of the double switch.
Adopted Giant: Fred Lewis, who can still draw a walk.
by jcb9 on May 24, 2009 5:54 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I voted for Crow
As wil mentioned, Towers has been scouting pitchers. With the pitcher-friendly Petco Park, building around pitching makes sense, and with Peavy likely not long for the Padres, it’ll be a need. Crow looks like one of the best pitchers available and he should be on the fast track to the majors.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that pie > cake, that Bochy is endowed by his creator with certain undeniable traits, that among these are veteran man-love, a gigantic skull, and the pursuit of the double switch.
Adopted Giant: Fred Lewis, who can still draw a walk.
by jcb9 on May 24, 2009 5:58 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Crow would be an excellent pick – for the Mariners, Padres and Giants
by wilriv21 on May 24, 2009 6:00 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I like Crow here...
Because he was a top 10 last year in a strong draft (and was long considered the number 4 in that draft) but also because i wonder how much negotiating leverage he has. Does he really want to go back in the draft for the third strait year?
by OmahaGiants on May 24, 2009 10:15 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
With the pitcher-friendly Petco Park, building around pitching makes sense
I never got this argument. Why should you build around pitching just because you have a pitcher-friendly park?
Adoptive parent of Noah Lowry. Because he was awesome once, and, goddammit, he shall be awesome once again!
I hope.
by Cookyman on May 25, 2009 3:10 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well, for example, the Rockies made the playoffs just a couple of years into their history by stockpiling a bunch of guys who could hit the crap out of the ball in high altitude. If you’d collected those same players at the same time in Petco (never mind that it didn’t exist then), you probably would’ve had a sub-.500 team. On the other hand, when the pre-humidor Rockies tried to build around pitching – Billy Swift, Mike Hampton, Denny Neagle – it was always disastrous.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that pie > cake, that Bochy is endowed by his creator with certain undeniable traits, that among these are veteran man-love, a gigantic skull, and the pursuit of the double switch.
Adopted Giant: Fred Lewis, who can still draw a walk.
by jcb9 on May 25, 2009 8:15 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
One example doesn’t really prove anything. There are many counterexamples – the 1999-2002 Diamonbacks played in a pretty extreme hitters park, but won with fantastic pitching and below average hitting. The 2000 A’s played in a pitchers park, but won games with their offense.
Also, regarding the pitchers you mentioned: Billy Swift got injured the second he came to Colorado, and never pitched a full season there (188 IP in three years), so he’s not relevant. Neagle was just a mediocre pitcher in his mid 30’s. And Hampton? Well, look at his K/BB in the 6 years before he signed with the Rockies:
2.35
2.06
1.81
1.69
1.75
1.53
That was a terrible deal, period. It was terrible in Coors, and it would have been terrible in Petco.
Adoptive parent of Noah Lowry. Because he was awesome once, and, goddammit, he shall be awesome once again!
I hope.
by Cookyman on May 25, 2009 9:00 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You’re right, perhaps the Rockies pitchers weren’t the best example. Although as I recall, Swift was pretty bad in Colorado even before he got hurt, and when they gave those contracts to Neagle and Hampton, I remember some folks arguing that Neagle was a bad signing, but Hampton was a guy who would succeed in Colorado and be worth the money.
In any case, I don’t mean to say that building around your ballpark’s strengths is the only way. Randy Johnson and Curt Schilling is perhaps an extreme example – Schilling was one of the best pitchers in the game, and Johnson is one of the best lefty pitchers ever. Obviously, if you have the chance to put together a couple of really special players like that, you’d be foolish not to do it just because it doesn’t fit your ballpark’s profile.
But there’s nobody who’ll be available at #3 who can even potentially be compared to a Johnson/Schilling combination, so I do think it makes sense to play to the ballpark’s built-in strengths. If you’re the Padres, it makes sense to focus on pitching – between a good staff and park effects, you can really shut down the opposing lineup. If you’re the Red Sox, it’s smart to find guys who put the ball in the air to left field, because a lot of them will turn into homers. If you’re the Rockies, it’s smart to find guys who put the ball in the air, period. But a lot of those players who’ll hit a bunch of homers in Fenway will just hit a bunch of routine fly balls playing in Petco, so they just don’t make sense for the Padres.
Similarly, if you’re the Giants, it doesn’t make a lot of sense to put all your eggs in the basket of left handed power hitters not named Bonds, because the ballpark eats such hitters alive. Of course, if you find someone who you think is going to be special, you should take him. But since we’re talking about this year’s draft, that’s not really the case. The best player available is probably going to be a pitcher, pitching will be a need for the Padres, and hey, it’s a pitchers’ park, too. The last fact isn’t the only relevant factor, but it is icing on the cake.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that pie > cake, that Bochy is endowed by his creator with certain undeniable traits, that among these are veteran man-love, a gigantic skull, and the pursuit of the double switch.
Adopted Giant: Fred Lewis, who can still draw a walk.
by jcb9 on May 25, 2009 2:10 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
This isn’t what you were saying before. Building around your ballpark’s strengths/weaknesses – like getting sinkerballing pitchers and fly ball hitters in Colorado, is smart. But getting good pitchers because you have a pitchers park isn’t building around your ballpark’s strengths. It doesn’t really make any sense. Why would good pitchers benefit more from Petco than bad ones?
Adoptive parent of Noah Lowry. Because he was awesome once, and, goddammit, he shall be awesome once again!
I hope.
by Cookyman on May 25, 2009 2:51 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’m not feeling well and have spent most of the afternoon napping, so maybe I’m missing something obvious, but I think I’m still pretty much saying the thing you think I’m wrong about:
If you’re the Padres, it makes sense to focus on pitching – between a good staff and park effects, you can really shut down the opposing lineup.
It’s not that a good pitcher will benefit more from Petco than bad pitchers – it’s a question of how you use your finite resources.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that pie > cake, that Bochy is endowed by his creator with certain undeniable traits, that among these are veteran man-love, a gigantic skull, and the pursuit of the double switch.
Adopted Giant: Fred Lewis, who can still draw a walk.
by jcb9 on May 25, 2009 4:01 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
If you’re the Padres, it makes sense to focus on pitching – between a good staff and park effects, you can really shut down the opposing lineup.
Yes, but between a bad lineup and a park effects, you can also easily be shut down. It works both ways. There’s no reason to believe that the park will help your pitchers more than it will help the opposing team’s pitchers.
Adoptive parent of Noah Lowry.
:-(
by Cookyman on May 25, 2009 4:12 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
In a sense it will help your pitchers more than other pitchers, because your pitchers are there all the time.
I just think, all things being equal, pitching makes sense for them. That’s all.
An alternate theory just occurred to me, though – if you’re the Padres, maybe you SHOULD draft hitters. Due to Petco, hitters may be reluctant to sign with you, thus making it all the more important to regularly develop homegrown hitters (or to trade for them while they’re young, a la Adrian Gonzalez).
I don’t really know how one would quantify this kind of thing, though.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that pie > cake, that Bochy is endowed by his creator with certain undeniable traits, that among these are veteran man-love, a gigantic skull, and the pursuit of the double switch.
Adopted Giant: Fred Lewis, who can still draw a walk.
by jcb9 on May 25, 2009 5:52 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Draft a hitter. Also would expect the Padres to receive pitching prospects back in any Peavy deal.
by wilriv21 on May 25, 2009 6:31 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
In a sense it will help your pitchers more than other pitchers, because your pitchers are there all the time.
OK, this is plain not true. Padres play 81 games in Petco. Opposing teams play 81 games in Petco. Every time a Padres pitcher pitches in Petco, an opposing team’s pitcher pitches there too. Every time a Padres pitcher benefits from pitching in Petco, an opposing team’s pitcher benefits from it too. Every time the Padres’ lineup hits in Petco, an opposing team’s lineup has to hit there too. Every time a Padres hitter is hurt because he’s hitting in Petco, an opposing team’s hitter is hurt because of it too.
It balances out. It always does.
Adoptive parent of Noah Lowry.
:-(
by Cookyman on May 26, 2009 4:00 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I meant that the Padres pitchers benefit from Petco more than the pitchers of any given other team do. Whether that’s relevant in any way is open to debate.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that pie > cake, that Bochy is endowed by his creator with certain undeniable traits, that among these are veteran man-love, a gigantic skull, and the pursuit of the double switch.
Adopted Giant: Fred Lewis, who can still draw a walk.
by jcb9 on May 26, 2009 8:34 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
But they don’t! Well they do from a statsy point of view, but not from a help your team to win point of view. Whenever there’s a game at Petco, there are two teams playing there – the Padres and an opposing team. Petco hurts the Padres lineup, but it also hurts the opposing team’s lineup. Petco help the Padres pitchers, but it also helps the opposing team’s pitchers. So, whenever there’s a game at Petco, there is no reason to believe that the park will help Padres pitchers more than it will help the opposing team’s pitchers, or that it will hurt the Padres hitters more than it will hurt the opposing team’s hitters.
You agree with that, right?
Adoptive parent of Noah Lowry.
:-(
by Cookyman on May 26, 2009 9:31 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Generally, yes, though I could see where it wouldn’t. If, for example, the Padres have a lineup of gap-to-gap, line drive type hitters, Petco might not hurt their hitters as much as it would hurt a theoretical opposing team whose lineup is full of fly ball-type home run hitters. Without having data in front of me to confirm it, I’d assume that the line drives to the gaps would still be line drives to the gaps, while the fly balls that would be homers in Coors, Fenway, etc., would be routine fly balls in Petco.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that pie > cake, that Bochy is endowed by his creator with certain undeniable traits, that among these are veteran man-love, a gigantic skull, and the pursuit of the double switch.
Adopted Giant: Fred Lewis, who can still draw a walk.
by jcb9 on May 26, 2009 10:16 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Again, with this I agree. Fly ball hitters will benefit more from Coors, so Colorado should get a bunch of those. That’s building around your ballpark’s strengths/weaknesses, and it’s generally a good idea.
But good pitchers won’t benefit more from Petco than bad ones. That’s why I think that saying “with the pitcher-friendly Petco Park, building around pitching makes sense” isn’t the same thing, and doesn’t make sense. Do you agree?
Adoptive parent of Noah Lowry.
:-(
by Cookyman on May 26, 2009 1:24 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hope you feel better, by the way.
Adoptive parent of Noah Lowry.
:-(
by Cookyman on May 25, 2009 4:14 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I picked Gibson, but it could be Crow
With the Padres working to trade Peavy, I don’t see them having the pitching depth to absorb that. (Not that they have hitting depth) That, the pitching-first mode that Petco would seem to preach, and with that rebuilding mode in mind, I think they’re going to go with the safer, more likely to succeed pitchers than the riskier Green or Tate.
SFDugout.com is BACK! See the Top 50 Giants Prospects!
by BruteSentiment on May 24, 2009 6:00 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I voted Scheppers, almost because I don’t trust the Padres to make the right pick. Their drafting record over the past decade is pretty abysmal and Scheppers is incredibly risky in the top-10.
Joe Martinez: My fingers are crossed and my palms are together for you.
When it's all said and done, America will be remembered for three things: The Bill of Rights, jazz, and baseball.
by cornball on May 24, 2009 7:05 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Davis and Gyvens aren’t even first-round talents.
by Dan from NM on May 24, 2009 8:59 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, I included them because I saw heir names come up on some mock drafts, but they look pretty underwhelming to me, too.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that pie > cake, that Bochy is endowed by his creator with certain undeniable traits, that among these are veteran man-love, a gigantic skull, and the pursuit of the double switch.
Adopted Giant: Fred Lewis, who can still draw a walk.
by jcb9 on May 24, 2009 9:00 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
That's why they're in there for the Padres spot.
SFDugout.com is BACK! See the Top 50 Giants Prospects!
by BruteSentiment on May 24, 2009 9:48 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
White’s my guess. He’s a relatively safe college arm with more upside than Gibson, though I’d pick Gibson because I think his upside is underrated.
by Grant on May 24, 2009 10:39 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
