Part of

« Beerleaguer for breakfast: Chase Utley speaks! | Main | Beerleaguer for breakfast: Cairo catches on with Reds »

Tuesday, January 26, 2010


Wow- this Bocock dude really generates a lot of interest!

Looks like about what would happen if Freddy Galvis ever gets called up. Actually, maybe Rube brought him here to play with Freddy and inspire him to learn how to hit.

Golson DFA'd.
Do you think Mayberry's fate will prove any better?

I think Mayberry has about two months to show something. Too old at 26 to have so many flaws at the dish. But since he's really not blocking anyone, I'd just as soon keep him to see if he becomes a very late bloomer. He's still better than Golson, who clearly couldn't cut it.

Brian Bocock puts the Phillies over the top.

That's actually 10 mil + incentives, kart racer.

A surprisingly high guarantee for a player with so many health issues, and then incentives on top?

Oakland either had to spend money on someone or else is just hoping to spin him for prospects at the deadline.

Wow, Oakland now has 2 new starting pitchers who didn't pitch in '09. That seems like a lot to give to a guy who missed all of last year. They'll probably trade him in July if he's any good.

Bocock is 24, Galvis is 20. If Galvis is still in Double A hitting .230 at age 23, as Bocock was, then we can say he was a bust, like Bocock is.

Post from MLBTR "BJ's without Bocock? I can't imagine that." LOL

Well, you know what they say, Bocock is better than Nocock!

And Uncle Cholly agrees with everyone else about Cliff Lee not being around anymore.

This makes me miss Terry Harmon.

Bocock is a no hit-good glove infielder? Sounds like No Hit Nunez without the high salary, to me. I can't complain with this kind of low level minor league filler type signing.

We can scratch Sheets off our starting pitching wish list. I guess we'll be on the edge of our seats every time KK or Geezer comes out to be our 5th starter. My gut tells me that by the time April rolls around, it will be someone not presently on the roster who will be our 5th starter. Will the Mystery 5th Starter sign in, please.

"I think Mayberry has about two months to show something."

And with the way Cholly uses his bench, he'll probably get about 6 AB's in those 2 months.

There once was...

naaahhh. Too easy.

Is there any free agent going to sign with the Mets other than Jason Bay? Seriously, it's like no one wants to play there.

Wonder why? :D

I am surprised that the Mets didn't make a full court press attempt at getting Sheets. Even if they had to pay a bit more. His upside made me worried they'd get him.

Who will they go after Wang?

Bay had absolutely NO other options too. He really only wanted to get a bit more money from the BoSox and they called his bluff signing Cameron. I bet he was pissed when he saw that deal and them withdrawing their offer.

Citifield is the Gobi Desert of Free Agency right now.

Garland was another guy they had some interest in and another guy that had no interest in coming east.

Breakdown of Chooch's contract:

2010 - 1.9m
2011 - 2.75m
2012 - 3.7m
with a $500k buyout in year 4, totaling 8.85.

Looks like the Mets are all over that new kid. Smoltz. I hear he's crazy good with a lot of upside.

They think Wang is already off the market. Omar got confused when Rube grabbed Bocock off of waivers. Hopefully, nobody will explain to him that they're not the same person.

Smoltz? Hmm, what a great idea.

Maybe they'll give him like $8 million.

Sheets got $10M guaranteed + a lot of upside potential? Guess the Oakland medical staff gave him a pretty clean bill of health & the A's FO like what they saw from him on the mound in some more recent sessions.

Sheets could earn himself a nice paycheck next year if he pitches well in one of the best pitcher's park in the AL.

More minor league journeyman/retreads at AA & AAA. For a system that supposedly has that has a ton of talent, my bet is that they are among the league leaders again for minor league FA signings at the AA & AAA levels.

Funniest line I ever hard about Golson was that after one terrible AB at Reading:

"He looks like he is chasing flies up there."

Sadly Anthony Hewitt is an even worse prospect and Zach Collier isn't much better. Two more "athletes" who are pretty short on actual baseball skills and likely will go down the same path as the likes of Golson and Taylor.

Collier started off good in 08. He regressed when he was pushed last year. Maybe he clicks this year and it comes together. I think he's got a better shot than Hewitt.

Hewitt was a longshot when he was picked...we all knew it.

Luckily we have plenty of other lottery tickets to scratch off still.

NEPP - Those were both #1 picks and not "lottery tickets." Since '07, the Phils drafts have been less than impressive including some what looks like some really mediocre picks with their high draft choices the past 3 years.

Look I know that everyone and the national media is now high on the Phils' minor league system but there are others who see a system that has traded away a ton of talent, has almost no positional prospects in the infield of much value, and desperately needs to really hit on 1 or 2 of those prospects from the Lee trade.

Maybe Hewitt, Reggie Taylor, Golson, Moose Mattair and C.J. Henry could form a semi-pro like the Washington Generals and play the Globetrotters.

Tremendous athletes.

MG, you and I both know they were drafted as lottery picks despite their super high draft spot.

Should we have gambled on both high picks? Probably not.

Our system is devoid of talent at IF but we do have great depth at RHP and OF...We gave up a lot of talent in the past couple years but a good draft turns that right back around.

I get the Phils drafting philosophy: High risk/high reward. But I think you can hold that philosophy while drafting surer bets in the first couple rounds. There's no shortage of projectible athletes in the later rounds.

The guy taken 2 picks after Hewitt was Daniel Schlereth. The guy taken 2 picks after Golson was Phil Hughes. The guy taken 3 picks after Reggie Taylor was.....Roy Halladay.

So the cost of this philsophy is not just throwing away lottery tickets. It's throwing away lottery tickets AND missing out on players who would have a major impact.

I'd just as soon buy my lottery tickets after the first round.

1st round lottery tickets are almost always a waste. Those guys should be taken later. Domonic Brown is such a player. There was good reason to draft him, even though they figured he'd go and play college football. As talented an athlete as he was, he was not a first round pick.

Golson and Hewitt were never worthy of a first round pick and bonus. Never. And the Phillies over the years have been the worst offenders in this area. Toolsy outfielders are for later in the draft. The second round will always have a bunch of these guys left. And much later also. Whatever happened to the days when they took Hamels in the first? Rollins and Rolen in the second? Those guys had serious skills and still still higher ceilings.

Clout, you beat me to it. But is seems do darned obvious to everyone except for the Phillies' front office.

"but there are others who see a system that has traded away a ton of talent, has almost no positional prospects in the infield of much value, and desperately needs to really hit on 1 or 2 of those prospects from the Lee trade."

I think you might as well just say "I see it".

Of course Hewitt is/was a "lottery ticket". He's the definition of one. Collier deserves a bit more time before he's written off.

Like someone said above, I'd rather draft the "lottery tickets" a bit later and bust slot on one or two each year.

NEPP - You won't be able to judge it for a couple of years but the Phils better hope that Gillies turns out to be a starting OF for them and that Aumont contributes something meaningful as a starter/reliever for the Phils.

Can't speak for the younger pitching talent at the A or below last year but there was way too much made of the "talent" at Reading. It was more homegrown and deeper (especially on the starting side) than it had been in years but by far the 2 best players from that team are gone (Taylor, Drabek). Beyond that, there were just a couple of secondary pieces at best.

NEPP - Phils did make a huge deal out of those 1st round draft picks they from '06-'08 each year thought and they don't have many prospects left to show for it. They traded away Drabek, Cardenas, and D'Arnaud. Hewitt is pretty much unofficially a bust already and Collier looks like another "tools" guys who has no clue about the strike zone even at the low A levels.

Only guy left who really might contribute is Savery and from what I understand he looks like he is a "marginal reliever type" who doesn't have enough to start at the MLB level.

That isn't a whole lot left to show for 6 high draft picks.

well halladay was obtained with Drabek, D'arnaud and taylor so that something to show for two of them

You get Halladay for Drabek(+) and Blanton for Cardenas (+). 2/3 of their top 3 pitchers...let's not ignore that.

MG: You have 5 years of Halladay and 4 1/2 years of Blanton to show for those guys. Not bad at all. The only real advantage of having the younger guys is their contracts.

Clout: Not to question the genius of this site, but was it a guarantee any of the pitchers you listed were going to be a success. Who else was taken in the 10 picks after the Phillies? The baseball draft is almost always a crapshoot. Hey, I might be wrong. I don't know anything about those pitchers before they were drafted. Maybe they all have Golden Tickets attached to their arms and the Phillies were just too dumb to see it.

Clout: Schlereth projects to be an 8th-inning reliever at best. I get what you're saying, and he's most certainly going to have a better MLB career than Anthony Hewitt, but a lot of people questioned his selection by the Dbacks at the time (he's since been traded to the Tigers). You usually want to get a little more impact potential and upside than "middle to late inning reliever" out of a 1st-round pick.

A better choice would have been Casey Kelly, taken 30th by the Red Sox, and now considered one of the best starting pitching prospects in all of the minors.

Len39 - I've made this point before, but the Phillies didn't trade for more than 1 year of Halladay and 2.5 years of Blanton. The rest of that time were contract extensions we granted at near market rate. It'd be like if Seattle signed Lee to a 10 year extension and claimed that they had traded for 11 years of Cliff Lee.

Hey, just lumped the Phillies in with other teams having "formidable trios" in their rotation! That grabbed my attention (thinking, "They do?") The article does hedge the bold statement:

"...Roy Halladay, who has the durability and talent to carry a team through a postseason like Sabathia did last year. And if Cole Hamels can regain his 2008 form, either Joe Blanton or the emerging J.A. Happ could give the Phillies that prime front three that any top contender needs."

Ok, that's a lot of "ifs."
What do you think? Do we have the makings of a formidable rotation even w/o Cliff?

Gbrett - of course they have a formidable trio. They have possibly the best pitcher in baseball and a guy 1 year removed from a WS MVP. At #3 they have a guy that eats innings and keeps you in ball games or an up and coming young pitcher who almost won the rookie of the year.

Depth at SP or the Pen will be our downfall this year (if we have one).

Personally, I think this is the best PHils team I have ever seen. 96 Wins.

I've opined on the Phillies draft strategy before. I think everyone is in agreement that it is asinine. Any of the 6 players taken after Hewitt would have been better picks, especially Chisenhall (would've solved the 3b hole in the minors) and Friedrich. Either one would currently be our #2 prospect behind Brown. Hewitt was a bad pick at the time and an even worse pick now and he's not even one of our top 20 prospects at this point.

As for the 2007 draft, I thought it was common knowledge that Rice burns out it's pitchers. Apparently it is not. I wouldn't send my kid there if he becomes a pitcher. We don't even need to talk about Porcello.

I guess they figure all the failures will be worth it when they hit on that lotto ticket, because you win with stars. But you know what they say about the lotto, it's a tax on stupidity.

Jack: Casey Kelley was a bit of a risk too as a 1st rd pick because everyone was sure he was going to college (Vandy?)at the time.

(to be fair, Chisenhall in the 1st was considered a reach at the time, but it proved to be a very good pick so far)

Jack: I agree. I tried to use guys picked just after the Phillies' selection to make my point. Unless you're suggesting Hewitt will be more valuable than Schlereth, in which case I'll happily take that bet.

len39: The draft is a crapshoot, true, but you can bet the long odds and pray for a big payoff or you can bet the chalk and get a surer, albeit smaller return.

The "tools" picks the Phillies made were widely regarded as long odds to pan out. I remember the shock on scouting Web sites when Hewitt was taken. There's no guarantee the Phils would've made a better choice had they taken a prospect considered more polished. But the odds were far better that they would've than the odds of Hewitt, a cold-weather player who never faced serious competition and showed no evidence of baseball skills, ever having an impact.

My view on the Phils' draft philosophy is identical to BedBeard's: "I'd rather draft the lottery tickets a bit later and bust slot on one or two each year."

The Red Sox and Yankees have 3 aces. The Phillies have and Ace, a Queen and 2 Jacks.

You know who Hewitt reminds me of? Mike Mamula. The Eagles (and Phillies) got suckered in by a workout warrior. There's obviously still time for Hewitt to figure things out, and I hope he becomes the next Domonic Brown, but. . .

GBrettfan: If Happ starts using his curveball more, I'd buy into that trio.

I really enjoy following the Phillies, and their minor leagues. I don't have a problem with their draft strategy. In one way or another they've been successful in the first round with guys like Drabeck, D'Arnaud, Cardenas. All of these guys were traded for MLB players. They've missed recently on Hewitt, Collier (I'm ready to write them off), might have missed on Savery (I think he might be a MLB long reliever). I don't think there is enough evidence to condemn their approach, because (1) they do sometimes get valuable assets via this approach and (2) I have no idea what a normal success rate would be for 1st rounders and (3) we'd really have to compare the Phils approach to some other team as a control. I don't know enough of the other teams to make a fair comparison. The other thing the Phils have had going against them is that they've had late draft picks because the MLB team has been good.

Maybe they do like to roll the dice too much with the early picks, but I think it would take quite a bit of analysis to prove that it hasn't been a good strategy for this team. It is hard to agrue against turning two 1st rounders (in 06) and a fifth round (in 07 i think?) into $6mm and Roy Halladay.

clout: My recollection of the Hewitt pick is different than yours. I recall a number of scouting reports saying he could go anywhere in the first round, though probably with a supplemental pick, and I think many of those reports were thinking the Phils might be a team to take him. I recall him crushing the ball in high school.

I do recall him not playing good competition, but since he played so well in his inferior league up north, that some scouts saw the ability for him to learn, adapt, whatever, he clearly can't hit now though.

Is it a definite that Hewitt has been moved to center field? His road to the show would be easier if he stuck at 3B.

From what I understand Hewitt can't play the IF.

And the Phils' drafting has become eerily similar to the way the Rays used to draft under Lamar Hunt...they pretty much always shot for the moon with raw high schoolers in the first round and skipped over the more developed prospects...It can work when you get someone like BJ Upton, but it can kill you when you blow 10 mil on a Matt White (I think that was his name?).

I miss Arbuckle...and yes, I know he like the high schoolers too, but he seemed to be right about them more often.

Hewitt and Collier are very different players. I thought the Hewitt pick was asanine from the beginning, just too much of a reach at a position (3B) that was already weak in the org.
I saw Collier at Williamsport several times , and 2010 is a huge year for him. He's more of a contact hitter who has a much better clue at the plate than Hewitt (who has crazy power when he can connect). Also Collier is plus defensively and has great speed, whereas Hewitt needs to learn a new position cuz he can't play 3B.
Overall, I get the risk/reward draft philosophy, but I sure hope they focus on the infield this year, and take a year off from the toolys guys....the shed is now full!

MadMax: We must've been reading different reports or, quite likely, I was focused on the reports from the more stat-oriented sites as opposed to the tool-oriented sites.

This is the most I made after the Phils selected Hewitt on Draft Day:

Hewitt is a classic many-tool, no-baseball-skill selection. The Phillies philosophy on prospects is like the guy who goes to the race track and plays only trifectas. You'll lose 99 out of 100 times, but the one time you hit the payoff is huge. The result is a tiny handful of excellent players and a vast, deep array of crap clogging your minor league teams.

Posted by: clout | Thursday, June 05, 2008 at 04:57 PM

Yes, he simply couldn't handle 3B...he will be a CF this year per the Front Office.

MadMax: Baseball America is a very tools-biased analyst. Even they had Hewitt ranked 41st heading into the draft. I have no idea where your statement "he could go anywhere in the first round" comes from. It certainly isn't what I remember.

Several analysts had the Phillies taking Collier where they took Hewitt and Hewitt where they took both were essentially drafted where expected and both were by the Phillies with their well known fetish towards toolsy OFs.

Neither were very good uses of those picks though.

anyone else shocked that Sheets got Ten million? from Beane nontheless?

Clout - on the money. Even the guys they hit on, like Brown, are late round picks. Before the current infatuation with tools, the Phillies had a penchant for picking 1st rounders with skill and tools who fell for one reason or another This seemed to work out well for them. Hamels and with his broken arm and Drabek with his makeup are probably the best examples of this. Savery might be a good example of this too, with his arm trouble out of Rice. He'd be the one who didn't live up to potential. Thing is, as a #4/5/swingman he'll probably still contribute to the major league team and 2.5 outta 3 ain't bad at all. Of the super tools high draft picks only Gose is looking good right now, and he's still got a lot to work on.

Clout: I remember the 1st round talk for Hewitt, that he was a fast riser with tools who might appeal to someone. Mostly because there was some buzz from teams that he might go that high. But most analysts thought it was going to be an overdraft, if I remember right.

As much as I complain, in fairness to the Phillies, only 4 of their last 12 1st round picks can be fairly described as "tools" picks.

Of course when you get into the 2nd round, it gets worse: their last 4 2nd rounders were Kelly Dugan, Anthony Gose, Jason Knapp and Moose Mattair. That's 3 of 4 toolsy picks (Knapp was considered one of the best schoolboy pitchers in the nation).

I was all set to gripe about D'Arby Myers, but he was a 4th rounder, so I can't complain. I do recall a poster named P O'Neil describing Myers as "a beast" and a first-rate prospect.

His stats are definitely "beastly."

It's never a good idea to draft solely on position in the early rounds, but this would be the year to take advanced IF prospects with about 2 or 3 years left on the contracts and players in their 30's manning the 1st, 3rd, SS, and C positions. Think the Phillies know they can only play 3 outfielders at a time?

Gee clout, I think you did the research for me, cause if Baseball America ranked him 41st then, that is FIRST round, therefore my recollection that someone said he could ... 'go anywhere in the first round' seems pretty reasonable.

Clout maybe you don't follow the draft all that much, but the round usually goes past the 41st pick because of supplemental picks. In fact in 2008, the first round was 46 picks.

Oh, thanks, you so Conveniently left of the part in my post about "though probably with a supplemental pick", nice way to cherry pick there buddy.

Paul W., I agree with you. I felt that $10 million dollars sounded awful high for a pitcher coming off a year off injury. Was it a bidding war? Who knows? No one's talking. Oakland? Maybe it's counterfeit money they are paying Sheets with, C-notes with Obama's picture on them.

Madmax: I don't know, I think everyone, experts included, make a distinction between the 1st round and the supplemental round.

I'm kinda surprised Sheets spurned the Mets. You'd think he'd set himself up better for a contract in 2011 in that stadium facing NL lineups. Maybe the stench of death was just too much.

MadMax: If you include supplemental picks, then it definitely was First Round, I agree.

My point is that the Phils took Hewitt with the 24th pick of the draft. Even the tools-oriented BA had him 41st. The more stat oriented analysts did not consider him a first rounder.

Hewitt was an overreach and that was obvious the day he was chosen. See my post from that day. That wasn't off the top of my head, it was based on what I'd been reading all day from various scouting sites.

Do you disagree?

I don't think anyone looks at the Mets as a favorable situation right now...not to mention the training staff has got to be under fire right now, and Sheets is likely going to need good trainers around.

According to FoxSports' Ken Rosenthal: "The Mets were among the other teams that had pursued Sheets."

The Muts must've bid $9.9 Million. Sheets decided to pitch for a team that won 75 games instead of one that only won 70. He wants to pitch for a winner.

People had Hewitt projected as a 1st-rounder because they expected the Phillies to take him there.

My only point on the recent 1st round picks was this - Phils only have Savery and I am pretty dubious on his ability to contribute in a meaningful way at the MLB level.

Those players did play a key role in the Phils acquiring both Halladay and Blanton but both of these guys will really help the Phils win "today" (next year or two) and not in the more intermediate/longer term. That was my other point about raiding the cookie cupboard to win now which both Amaro and Gillick have done a fair amount of the past 2+ years.

Fun trivia question: In the last 40 years, the Phillies have only drafted 2 First Round picks who have a career OPS above .800 (I'm purposely omitting J.D. Drew since he didn't sign). They were drafted within 3 years of one another. Neither was a "toolsy" pick. Can you name them?

Clout - What Stats oriented site did not like Hewitt?

He batted something like over .500 in his little league, I mean high school league.

At the time of the pick, Hewitt was a polarizing player. Some thought he was a good pick, see below comment linked from a guy at baseball prospectus, some thought he wasn't. I'm not sure how you can objectively he was a reach, subjectively fine. I agree there were many different views, but like I said, I recall some liking the pick, that was all I said, and I'm not wrong.

JBird, Tell me what was factually incorrect about this comment that I wrote "I recall a number of scouting reports saying he could go anywhere in the first round, though probably with a supplemental pick", and given that Clout already dug up on noted source ranking him 41st...

And no, I don't tink most folks differentiate between round 1 and round 1s, but there is always a first and you can be that guy.

MadMax: Let me again print the post I made the day he was drafted:

"Hewitt is a classic many-tool, no-baseball-skill selection. The Phillies philosophy on prospects is like the guy who goes to the race track and plays only trifectas. You'll lose 99 out of 100 times, but the one time you hit the payoff is huge. The result is a tiny handful of excellent players and a vast, deep array of crap clogging your minor league teams.

Posted by: clout | Thursday, June 05, 2008 at 04:57 PM"

Now where do you think I got that from? You think it came to me in a dream? There were numerous scouts, sites etc. who didn't like him for reasons cited above.

Do you think Hewitt was a good pick?

MadMax: Also, what do these words mean to you "I recall a number of scouting reports saying he could go anywhere in the first round"?

"Anywhere" implies that someone thought he could've been in the top 5 picks, no? That's just baloney.

You'd have been accurate if you'd said, "Scouting reports I read said he could go at the end of the first round or be a supplemental pick."

FWIW, supplemental picks are NOT listed as first rounders in the official records. They are listed as supplemental picks. Look it up on BB-Ref, where they call them 1as.

As for the stat sites I read, they thought Hewitt's HS stats were a joke given the short-season and weak competition.


Burrell and Utley? Both college kids.

bad news boars: You win! Jason will be sending a free Beerleaguer T-shirt your way.

Clout - How long do we have to wait for the answer to your trivia question?

And is there a prize for the person who gets it correct?

Hey Clout, At that time, sure, what do I know about HS players. I'm not a scout and never claimed to be one and he seemed ok to me. I didn't like doubling down on the same prototype with Collier, but that's because I like to diversify, I'm not a risk taker, slow and steady that's me. Now do I like the pick, uh nope, I think Hewitt can be written off.

I ask which sites not to challenge, but to expand my horizons. Thanks for the list, I'm much better informed now, might as well have a conversation with a petulant child. Are you always so cranky? All I tried to do interject to the Hewitt discussion was that not everyone was on the same train as you and that some, at the time, projected Hewitt to go rather high in the draft.

Gee Clout, you are the king of the copy and paste and then delete. Here what I wrote: "I recall a number of scouting reports saying he could go anywhere in the first round, though probably with a supplemental pick", you keep dropping the supplement pick part... why do you do that?

Oh wait, I get it, cause it keeps this arguement going, and you enjoy this more than actual discussion. You are one of those guys.

Please list the sites and the reports that did not like Hewitt, I need to go and do some reading to expand my horizons. Thanks much.

MadMax: As noted BA had him ranked 41st not 24th. John Sickels didn't like him at all. Several ESPN analysts thought the pick is a reach. ranked him lower etc. etc.

I'll repeat again: my post on the day he was taken was based on what I read that day. It was mostly negative. I am not a scout either, but I do try to read and inform myself. My negative opinion of the pick was based on what I read that day. If I came across anything positive it was in a small minority.

Hope that helps.

Leading up to the draft, the Phillies & Brewers were the teams known to be targeting Hewitt, as early as the first round.

BedBeard: Brewers picked ahead of the Phils and didn't take Hewitt. Must've changed their minds, huh?

Beane spent that much on Sheets because it was basically free money via revenue sharing. Also, between Sheets and Duscherer (sp), Beane has a perfect excuse to keep Trevor Cahill in the minors and avoid Super 2 status...something that will save his team money in the long run. That $10 million takes them to ony having $45 million committed to the 2010 payroll now. They had it, he was the best remaining option at a position of need so he spent it.

Another plus: If sheets is having a great year but the A's are clearly out of it in mid July, Beane will be able to flip him for top prospects. Overall, a good, if pricey, move for the A's.

BedBeard: I looked up who the Brewers took with their pick: 2B Brett Lawrie. Had a nice debut and actually jumped to Double A ate age 19. His season OPS was .777, including 13 HRs, and he was young for both leagues.

Sickels rates him as the best prospect in the Brewers system and he'll be near or at the top of BA's list.

NEPP: Excellent analysis of Beane's thinking on Sheets.

UC yesterday: “We picked up two guys in [Danys] Baez and [Jose] Contreras and both of these guys I know. We have two guys if they’re sore, or stiff or have a headache, they’ll pitch and I know they’ll pitch. They are mentally tough guys. They are not going to go to the trainer or the doctor. That makes me feel good. Both of them can pitch two innings and they will take the ball wherever I want to give it to them.”

Anyone else read that as a shot at Chan Ho Park?

I also caught the fact that Hamels (see link) has been training hard this off-season and they are gonna have him work on and throw his curve much more this year. If he can develop his curve to be even league-average, he'll be much much better overall.

Clout: My point as the Phillies MAY have been thinking the Brewers would take Hewitt at #32-two picks ahead of the Phillies in the Supplemental round, so they scooped him up when they could.

No doubt picking Hewitt at 16 would have been even more of a reach than at 24.

And picking a guy ranked 41st in the draft at #24 isn't a bizarre move-unless he's based wholly on the one in a million(?) chance he's the next Griffey Jr.

Atta boy Ruben. Good claim.

BedBeard: The Brewers, disconsolate at missing out on Hewitt, overcame their sadness and took Jacob Odorizzi with that pick. He's 19, has a 94 mph fastball and a 3.44 K/BB ratio in his first 2 seasons.

Perhaps we could offer the Brewers a 1 for 1 trade for this Odorizzi fella? I mean, they'd definitely go for it, right?

Q: Why take long shots early in the draft?

A: Money, money, money.

dlhunter - Pretty much right on. For a team that places so much emphasis on the US amateur draft in lieu of other prominent markets (e.g., Dominican Republic) they have generally tended to sign players at slot/less and not necessarily sign most of the earlier round picks. Changed a little bit but they haven't handed out a big bonus since the days of Floyd/Hamels.

Been busy and away. Interesting last few threads.

clout correctly refers to 'opportunity cost' when you select high-risk players in the top rounds of the draft.

I have to say, though, the Hewitt debate is getting tired.

I like the fact that the Phils have Halladay, Hamels, Blanton and Happ all locked up through 2012. That's a pretty good rotation.

2009 Opening Day Rotation:

Hamels, Myers, Blanton, Moyer, Park

2010 Opening Day Rotation:

Halladay, Hamels, Blanton, Happ, Moyer/Kendrick

IMHO, that is a huge upgrade in the rotation from one year to the next. The top 4 are/should be good enough that the 5 spot could effectively be a revolving door all season and they probably win the division anyway.

Everyone knows Hamels will come back with something to prove in 2010, but no one is discussing the fact that Halladay probably feels the same way. He was just part of a big trade, he's extremely competitive, and I'll bet he comes to Philly wanting to show he was worth it.

Toss in 190 - 210 IP from Blanton, and 175 - 200 from Happ, and I like their chances.

Of course, there is the bullpen.....

Oh, did the Phillies just pick up some guy names Bocock?

Madmax: I wouldn't be the 1st guy to differentiate between the 1st round and the 1st round supplemental because the very word "supplemental" does it. It's already differentiated. Otherwise it'd just be called the 1st round. Why so hostile?

NEPP - I caught that at the end of the interview too. Chan Ho Park must've been a pain in Manual's rear for him to say that.

If you can't hit a breaking ball, you can't play baseball no matter how fast you run. That was the point of the people who didn't like the Hewitt pick. Personally, I'll take a team full of John Kruks and leave the Lastings Millege types behind. I don't want athletes, I want ball players.

****NEPP - I caught that at the end of the interview too. Chan Ho Park must've been a pain in Manual's rear for him to say that.****

I agree. UC is hardly the type to toss someone under the bus like that...however indirectly it was done. I think we are beginning to see the reasoning behind the FO's reluctance to bring Park back despite a very solid effort as a reliever last year.

On Hamels and his off-season...I really think he's gonna come out with a huge chip on his shoulder in 2010. I expect big things from him this year and a return to the 140 ERA+ range.

Keith Law came out with his farm system rankings and put the Phillies at #24. He's long disliked Phillies prospects for some reason. He didn't like Taylor or Drabek while with the Phillies and there was a marked difference in his analysis of the pair after they left Philadelphia. I'd bump them up a couple of spots, at least over LAA, Detroit, and maybe Seattle. But It's hard to see how they get much higher than that without quibbling; ie I'm not a huge fan of the Twins system, etc; or determining that Gillies, Aumont, and Gose are all the real deal.

The comments to this entry are closed.

EST. 2005

Top Stories


Rotoworld News

Follow on Twitter

Follow on Facebook

Contact Weitzel