5 of the first 50 draft picks
by mattwelch on Feb 21, 2009 4:04 PM PST
46 comments
On the Rev's list of Top 8 moves of the offseason, his Number 8 choice is closer to my personal Number 1 -- getting in position to re-stock the depleted farm system by hoarding high draft picks. We now have the #24 and 25 picks for sure (compensation for Teix and Frankie), and depending on which of the remaining free agents sign with new teams, we should be picking near the following spots: 43, 44, and 49.
What does this mean? As we'll see below, among other things this means that we have more selections this year between numbers 24 and 50 than we have had for the last thirteen drafts COMBINED. I'll let that soak in.
A while back I looked at the drafts from 1998-2002, using our then-projected draft order (which has improved somewhat since then) to see what kind of players can be had within that band. But it's also instructive (and fun!) to look back through Angels draft history and see what we did with equivalent picks over the years. So, adjusting for the number of teams drafting (for example, a 24th pick in a 30-team draft in 2009 can be seen as having the same value as the 16th pick in a 20-team draft in 1967), here is a history of Angel draft picks between 24 and 50:
2008: n/a
2007: n/a
2006: Hank Conger (25)
2005: Trevor Bell (37)
2004: n/a
2003: n/a
2002: n/a
2001: Jeff Mathis (33)
2000: Jared Abruzzo (50)
1999: n/a
1998: n/a
1997: n/a
1996: n/a
1995: Jarrod Washburn (31)
1994: Norm Hutchins (40)
1993: Ryan Hancock (45)
1992: Jeff Schmidt (29), DeShawn Warren (46)
1991: Jorge Fabregas (34)
1990: n/a
1989: Joe Grahe (39)
1988: n/a
1987: John Orton (25), David Holdridge (31), Mike Erb (43)
1986: Lee Stevens (22), Terry Carr (25), Mike Fetters (27), Daryl Green (28)
1985: Bob Sharpnack (43)
1984: n/a
1983: Mark Doran (23)
1982: n/a
1981: n/a
1980: n/a
1979: n/a
1978: n/a
1977: Gary Johnson (33)
1976: Bob Ferris (30)
1975: Jim Anderson (25)
1974: Mike Martinson (34)
1973: Bruce Tonacsia (31) -- did not sign
1972: Bruce Bochte (34)
1971: Ron Jackson (37)
1970: Dan Briggs (34)
1969: David Chorley (29) -- not sure if he signed
1968: Gordon Carter (32) -- did not sign
1967: Dave Kingman (29) -- did not sign
1966: David Frost (28) -- not sure if he signed
1965: Sandy Vance (31) – did not sign
So: 33 players, of whom a maximum 29 signed. Of those 29, 15 played major league ball, and a 16th, Hank Conger, has a pretty good shot at not just making the bigs but making a strong impact there. Among the 15 winners,
* 4 were pretty good players (Bochte, Washburn, Stevens, Fetters)
* 3 were useful contributors (Ron Jackson, Fabregas, Mathis)
* 4 were hangers-on (Grahe, Orton, Briggs, Jim Anderson)
* 4 had cups o' joe (Hancock, Schmidt, Holdridge, Ferris)
Since 6 out of 9 top-50 picks during the Scioscia era have gone on to make the bigs (with a 7th, Conger, threatening), I think we can err on the side of being generous when applying these percentages to our 2009 draft class. So, let's say it's reasonable to suspect that 3 of the 5 picks will make the big leagues; 1 will be at least pretty good, 1 will be useful, and the last will be a scrub.
By letting our free agents walk, and signing just one guy requiring us to forfeit picks, Tony Reagins could easily have produced the next Jarrod Washburn, Ron Jackson, and Jim Anderson. With some luck and skill, the cache could be much better than that.
This Fan-Post is authored by an independent fan. Tell us what you think and how you feel.
3 recs |
46 comments
Email
Print
Comments
Also
You have to keep in mind that this has been considered as a weak draft class.
by lackey41 on Feb 21, 2009 4:14 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Everybody seems to say that every year
Witty .sig goes here.
by scareduck on Feb 23, 2009 12:46 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I think
we go and draft at least three outfielders.
Give the young guns a chance...if they suck wellll...
by angelskid2210 on Feb 21, 2009 10:51 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
best available all the way
and hopefully theyre willing to maybe pay some guys above slot to get better talent
id take 5 pitchers if they were all awesome. No sense reaching for a position we need NOW when these guys might not surface for 3 or 4 years
by ihearhowie2.0 on Feb 21, 2009 11:01 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Agree
but i still say you go with the best available outfielder. We have pitchers that will be there for us in a couple years, but outfield is just bone dry. But if all else fails hopefully we can find an absolute stud :)
Give the young guns a chance...if they suck wellll...
by angelskid2210 on Feb 21, 2009 11:16 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Disagree
We have been emphasizing three positions at the expense of all others — pitcher, catcher, and shortstop. We need some outfielders in the pipeline, especially considering we currently have (and hopefully soon have one more) three long-term contracts on aging outfielders.
by mattwelch on Feb 22, 2009 5:54 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
i dont understand the logic
of putting a position over quality of prospects. if a jered weaver falls to us again are we supposed to pass him up to reach for an outfielder who might not be worth a 1st round pick? what if we pass up on real quality pitchers in favor of some borderline outfielders and then in 2 years somehow come into a grady sizemore or ryan braun?
Too much can change in the time it would take for these prospects to develop into useful players.
in my opinion, you want as many great prospects as possible. If we have a surplus of great pitching then we can use it to acquire a proven outfielder rather than reach for one and hope he pans out. To me, that would be a waste of a high pick.
by ihearhowie2.0 on Feb 22, 2009 9:44 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
i should ammend that to not just say pitchers, but really any position we're not desperate for
For instance, a short stop or catcher or first baseman. Yeah, we technically dont NEED these positions right now, but things change very quickly.
We feel deep at pitcher now, but if Lackey exits in free agency, Saunders becomes mediocre again and Adenhart doesnt get his head straight…then suddenly our pitching isnt so hot even with a Walden in the minors. Likewise, if Conger and Napoli continue to fail to stay behind the plate, theyre more DHs than Catchers and we’re back at square one.
I completely agree that we need an outfielder, I just am opposed to taking a guy the Angels might view as the 65th best player with the 46th pick simply because he’s an outfielder if, for example, a pitcher or catcher they view as the 20th best player is still for some reason on the board.
by ihearhowie2.0 on Feb 22, 2009 10:02 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Agreed.
And I don’t think we’ve been de-emphasizing outfield prospects at all. Last year we used our third and fifth round picks on high ceiling, toolsey guys who both opted to go to college. Money wasn’t really the deal-breaker – the Angel’s met Cone, the third-rounder’s, asking price twice. Just the way the ball bounces sometimes.
I do want to see a high-round college guy or two with a track-record of patience and some power drafted next year, no matter what the position. We take a lot of risks with aggressive, high ceiling young players, so it would be nice to balance that out with a potential Chase Headley type.
by rghan on Feb 22, 2009 10:05 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Assuming, of course
That as ihearhowie so nicely put it, that college player isn’t someone we view as the 65th best player when we’re at the 46th pick. I just don’t want to see the Angels undervalue proof of the plate discipline tool/skill.
by rghan on Feb 22, 2009 10:09 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I agree with you to a degree
I think we’d all love to have guys in our system with a better plate approach, and in the last couple years the team seems to be embracing patience more than they used to. History has shown us, however, that just because a guy has a great approach in college, its not going to take him very far unless he has the physical tools to hit more advanced pitching. At the same time, I don’t want to see them draft a bunch of “projects” who show great athleticism but have no clue what the difference between a ball and a strike is.
When it comes down to it, I have faith that they’ll use their picks on the best available, high-ceiling guys. You can always trade/sign for guys to fill your needs at the big league level. Let the cream rise to the top when it comes to prospects, regardless of position.
by dmhead on Feb 22, 2009 11:42 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
The point is that we *have* been targeting positions in drafts
Just not in the outfield. In the Scioscia era, we’ve had 22 top-90 picks. With those we’ve selected:
- 12 pitchers
- 5 shortstops
- 3 catchers
- 1 3Bman, and 1 1Bman
Is this a best-athlete strategy? Hell no, it isn’t.
What’s more, even though this approach has its uses (we are deep at the game’s scarcest positions) it also creates imbalances that suggest we maybe oughtta think about drafting an outfielder or two.
by mattwelch on Feb 22, 2009 1:11 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I stand corrected
You’ve done your homework. I wonder what the explicit rational is behind the favoritism, year after year? I can see it for pitchers, but is the idea that position is the prime indicator of a position players athletic talent, and that if they don’t stick at a high-value position, then they can simply be moved? That you only (or mostly) find useful starting ss’ or c’s in the first round or two, but that other useful position players can be plucked from across the draft spectrum?
Fascinating info.
by rghan on Feb 22, 2009 1:37 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Well young arms can be traded for young outfielders..........
it has been done before my friend :)
12/19/08 - Thank you KLJ for coming into my life.
by norcaliangelsfan on Feb 22, 2009 1:43 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Well, shortstop is often the best athlete
Tommy Murphy was drafted as a shortstop, and eventually moved to CF. I hear that Sean Rodriguez might end up in the OF, too.
But I think this is all of a piece with the Scioscia/Stoneman/Reagins philosophy & overhaul-job. They went from leading the league in slugging percentage and having an atrocious rotation in 2000 to building a team around rotation strength and up-the-middle talent. It’s not a bad philosophy at all; I just worry that we’re starting to devalue our surplus instead of flipping it to fill needs.
by mattwelch on Feb 22, 2009 1:54 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
well
you make a good point, but if they were to start over this year with a new drafting philosophy, would you agree that with the top picks its better to take the best prospects over shooting for what the big league club needs the day of the draft? I mean, its one thing if youre drafting in the top 5 and the guy will likely make it in a year or two, but at our range the prospects take a while and i just think its unwise.
by ihearhowie2.0 on Feb 22, 2009 2:01 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Let's just say I'd make sure 2 or 3 of my top 5 athletes were OFers
Most likely they’ll use the surplus to go after a Weaver-type — someone who might not sign for whatever reason, and so who will be avoided by other teams.
We are all (including the Angels) talking about the same thing, basically. The “best athlete” approach will get you a bunch of shortstops and pitchers, and even some catchers (Mathis is a great athlete, for example). But there really is no such thing as being position-agnostic, and since we are really in the hole at the outfield slot, with contracts expiring & players declining right around the time the class of ’09 will be ML-ready, I think we should make sure some of our best athletes are outfielders.
by mattwelch on Feb 22, 2009 2:08 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
And this brings up a related discussion
Why DON’T we move Wood or Rodriguez to the OF? Adam Jones, B.J. Upton, and Ryan Braun are all examples of players who moved down the defensive spectrum to get their bats into the lineup (whether by inability or necessity). There are many others, I’m sure. Both of our young players seem to be good enough athletes to make the transition.
I remember (way back when) when Stoneman made the proclamation that he and Rowland were going to concentrate on premium positions, with the understanding that some guys would be moved as they advanced towards the majors. It’s a good idea, except I haven’t seen much of it in action.
"There's nothing that cleanses your soul like getting the hell kicked out of you." - Woody Hayes
by johnnyangel101 on Feb 22, 2009 2:52 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
well
right now, outfield is the most crowded position so shifting wood or S-rod to the OF really makes no sense at all. I think the idea of drafting some OF prospects is more to prepare for life post-Torii and post-Vlad
by ihearhowie2.0 on Feb 22, 2009 3:46 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I disagree.
We have who, Vlad, Torii, Juan, Abreu, GMJ, Willits for the OF/DH (that is 6 guys for 4 spots).
In the IF we have Wood, Figgins, Aybar, Izturtis, Howie, SRod, Morales, Quinlin (8 guys for 4 spots). I don’t see how OF is the more crowded location.
by matthiasstephan on Feb 22, 2009 3:49 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
what 4 spots in the OF
if your including the DH then include that for the IF
by HALO_86 on Feb 22, 2009 4:10 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
You could, I suppose ...
but do you honestly want these IF guys batting DH. Maybe Naps sometimes (when Mathis is in), but otherwise I have only read about the OF guys switching out at the DH spot (that is why we brought in Abreu right, not for defense surely).
I figure Vlad, Torii and Juan start in the field, and Abreu DHs. GMJ and Willits backup OF.
I figure Figgy, Aybar, Howie and Morales start the IF, with Izzy, Wood, and Q on the bench. SRod if things are needs (although he starts in Salt Lake). The point being we don’t have anyone ready to come up and sub in the OF. I don’t see it as more crowded.
We are in a load of trouble, imo, if Izzy or Quinlin are in the DH slot.
by matthiasstephan on Feb 22, 2009 4:22 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
um
crowded as in sean rodriguez isnt going to start over bobby abreu or torii hunter. He has a decent chance at starting over rob quinlan and figgins is gone after this season. Rodriguez and wood are basically 1 injury or day off away from playing in the infield. They would be about 4 injuries away from playing in the outfield
by ihearhowie2.0 on Feb 22, 2009 9:10 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Given how few top high school or college players play a corner outfield position, or second base, it’s not quite so lopsided as Matt’s raw totals suggest. In the first round of 2008, 46 players were chosen; only three played any outfield position. Only one played second base. So it’ll look lopsided no matter what team you look at.
That said, as Matt shows, the Angels lean even further off the averages, especially in avoiding corner infielders.
Saving countless runs with my defense.
by Sam Miller OCR on Feb 23, 2009 6:47 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
From everything I have read this is a really week class
Especially position player wise
I guess I already used my Manny bomb for the month?
by hauldog on Feb 22, 2009 1:13 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
MORE ARMS ARE ALWAYS NICE
MORE SHOULDERS TOO
stay humble in a ferari
by MYSPASCOBAR on Feb 22, 2009 4:13 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
still hasn't figured the all-caps thing out yet
Tex is a Yank...now our counter move is what?
by hk47 on Feb 23, 2009 12:55 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
LOL!!! This reminds me of a girl in 5th grade...
…for her state report, she had the state of Massachusetts.
Only…she couldn’t pronounce “Massa-a-CHU-setts”. It always came out “Mass-a-TOO-shits”. The teacher at first tried to gently correct her…as we laughed our asses off.
The teacher’s efforts didn’t work,and in fact she became more agitated…which caused the the girl to get more nervous. So then it would come out “Mass…Massa….Massa….Massachu…Massa-TOO-shits” all over again. She was the only student in the history of the school to have her report cut short due to inadvertent profanity.
Makes me laugh to this day…
by sothball on Feb 23, 2009 3:22 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I’ll have to try that next year when I reach 5th grade.
by Downing Rules on Feb 23, 2009 3:53 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
i think it kind of sums up the state pretty well
that little 5th grade girl was wise beyond her years, speaking universal truths
by ihearhowie2.0 on Feb 23, 2009 4:54 PM PST up reply actions 4 recs
does anybody know if any top prospects are...
represented by boras and how much does arte and co. want to deal w/him again?
by thejd on Feb 22, 2009 4:25 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
if we end up picking 24/25/43/44/49, those spots were slotted for...
1.38 mill., 1.35 mill, .877 k , .863 k & .796 k for the 08 draft for a total of 5.266 million in signing bonuses.
- the 08 figures are roughly 10% higher than 07 so the 09 figure should be approx. 5.79 mill. for those same slots.
-our total bonus pools for 08 and 07 were 2.7 mill & 1.8 mill. respectively for a total of 4.5 mill.
-we could surpass 07 and 08 bonus pools by a little over 1.25 mill for JUST the 5 picks we have in the first two rounds. this isn’t counting all other players selected past the 2nd round.
-this leads me to believe we might take some crazy risks/rewards w/the hope that we actually might not sign some of these kids and stockpile more compensatory/supplemental picks for 2010.
-
by thejd on Feb 26, 2009 7:20 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
good point
you could be right and if this is as weak a class as people suggest, maybe the Angels wont be hurt too bad if a first rounder doesnt sign
by ihearhowie2.0 on Feb 27, 2009 10:52 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Because the risk reward picks have been so successful lately?
I guess I already used my Manny bomb for the month?
by hauldog on Feb 27, 2009 12:43 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Exactly.
I really hope they focus on a college arm and bat in these 5 picks. Someone closer to the bigs and more projectable than an 18 year old from Florida.
They need to realize that the money spent on the first two rounds of the draft is a good investment. As Matt said, one of these five will turn into a big league regular – $6 million for that person is cheap.
Shoot – maybe two will become regulars – that would be a steal for $6 million.
They seem to be under budget in 2009 – maybe that is why.
Jim Scully
by jimmuscomp on Feb 28, 2009 7:41 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
im gonna go out on a limb and say teams being under budget might have more to do with the economy
by ihearhowie2.0 on Feb 28, 2009 11:56 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
What about the economy?
89.2% of the Los Angeles County workers are currently employed! That’s the vast majority, buddy! I’d like to see you do better!
by Caseys Kiss of Death on Mar 4, 2009 12:29 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
if the right player is available i think we'll take a college...
player. we had great college picks in the past w/abbott, erstad, glaus and most recently weaver but those type players aren’t usually around by the 24th/25th pick unless that player because of his agent (boras) has priced himself out of being signed for an unreasonable amount.
by thejd on Feb 28, 2009 9:46 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
Updated Draft Order
First-Round Picks
1. Nationals
2. Mariners
3. Padres
4. Pirates
5. Orioles
6. Giants
7. Braves
8. Reds
9. Tigers
10. Nationals (for failure to sign 2008 first-rounder Aaron Crow)
11. Rockies
12. Royals
13. Athletics
14. Rangers
15. Indians
16. Diamondbacks
17. Diamondbacks (from Dodgers for Orlando Hudson, A)
18. Marlins
19. Cardinals
20. Blue Jays
21. Astros
22. Twins
23. White Sox
24. Angels (from Mets for Francisco Rodriguez, A)
25. Angels (from Yankees for Mark Teixeira, A)
26. Brewers
27. Mariners (from Phillies for Raul Ibanez, A)
28. Red Sox
29. Yankees (for failure to sign 2008 first-rounder Gerrit Cole)
30. Rays
31. Cubs
32. Rockies (from Angels for Brian Fuentes, A)
Supplemental First-Round Picks
33. Mariners (Ibanez)
34. Rockies (Fuentes)
35. Diamondbacks (Hudson)
36. Dodgers (Derek Lowe, A, to Braves)
37. Blue Jays (A.J. Burnett, A, to Yankees)
38. White Sox (Orlando Cabrera, A, to Athletics)
39. Brewers (C.C. Sabathia, A, to Yankees)
40. Angels (Teixeira)
41. Diamondbacks (Juan Cruz, A, to Royals)
42. Angels (Rodriguez)
43. Reds (Jeremy Affeldt, B, to Giants)
44. Rangers (Milton Bradley, B, to Cubs)
45. Diamondbacks (Brandon Lyon, B, to Tigers)
46. Brewers (Brian Shouse, B, to Rays)
47. Angels (Jon Garland, B, to Diamondbacks)
Second-Round Changes
49. Pirates (for failure to sign 2008 second-rounder Tanner Scheppers)
55. Dodgers (from Braves for Lowe)
60. Diamondbacks (from Royals for Cruz)
61. White Sox (from Athletics for Cabrera)
72. Brewers (from Yankees for Sabathia)
76. Yankees (for failure to sign 2008 second-rounder Scott Bittle)
Third-Round Changes
103. Blue Jays (from Yankees for Burnett)
Supplemental Third-Round Picks
110. Astros (for failure to sign 2008 third-rounder Chase Davidson)
Remaining Compensation Free Agents
Bos: Paul Byrd (B).
KC: Mark Grudzielanek (B).
LAD: Manny Ramirez (A).
Mil: Ben Sheets (A).
Min: Dennys Reyes (B).
Play Wood already. Willits sucks.
by hauldog on Mar 4, 2009 12:57 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Knock ManRam off the list of remaining FA's.
Angels fan since '67
by red floyd on Mar 4, 2009 3:04 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
That D-back pick at 41 is a typo
Those picks are based on our record, so ours will be back-to-back.
by mattwelch on Mar 4, 2009 8:11 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I got it from Baseball America
I will look and see if they have an update
Play Wood already. Willits sucks.
by hauldog on Mar 5, 2009 10:12 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
How'd the Mariners get a draft pick that high?
I seem to remember a bunch of talk this time last year about them winning the division, which obviously means they wouldn’t be drafting so high right now. Weren’t they 101-61 last year….Oh wait….it looks like I reversed those numbers….nevermind.
by snowhor on Mar 6, 2009 4:23 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
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.
