Redbird Recollection: Shaun Boyd
When first rounders go bust.
The last time the Cardinals had the 13th pick of the draft, they took Shaun Boyd in 2000. Some labeled Boyd as a signability pick. The Cards then had a long history of drafting college pitchers, and Boyd was the first high school position player they had taken in the 1st round since they took Da Meathook back in 1991. For all the talk of the 2004 draft being disastrous, the 2000 draft produced two bright spots-Yadier Molina and Tyler Johnson. (Chris Narveson, John Gall and Carmel Cali all had a sniff of the bigs, but are now your basic Quad A roster fillers.) Side note of terror: Chase Utley was taken 2 picks later by the Phillies. (Gargh!!!)
The Cardinals saw Boyd as a potential lead-off hitter who could steal bases and hit for occasional power. He didn’t have a true position, but played mostly 2B in high school. In his debut for Johnson City, Boyd hit just .263/.315/.362, playing primarily in CF.
As a 19 year old, Boyd was ice cold to start out with for Peoria, hitting just .155/.274/.239 through June 5th. He managed to salvage his season somewhat and finished with a .282/.357/.394 line. He was 20 of 23 on stealing attempts, but only played in 81 games due to being struck by a pitch that broke his jaw. In those 81 games, Boyd had 20 errors playing mostly at 2B. He was noted for having slow feet and lacked quickness on the pivot when turning two. I’d have to think that if we were covering him back then, a few of us would be calling for Manno’s head.
At 20 Boyd was healthy and returned to Peoria. He quickly reasserted his prospect status, hitting for a robust .313/.379/.471 line. He shortened his swing and did a better job of using the entire field. He was 32-of-39 in stolen base attempts, but on the negative he also had a league leading 40 (!) errors at 2B. BA ranked him the Cardinals #6 prospect going into the following season. Here’s what they said about Boyd:
Strengths: With his speed and quick bat, Boyd is an exciting offensive prospect. He has good bat discipline and uses the whole field, rarely getting pull-happy. He profiles as a No. 2 hitter and could hit from the three hole if his power develops.
Weaknesses: The only category Boyd led outright in the MWL was errors by a second baseman, with 40. He moved from the outfield after signing, and though the Cardinals think he’ll stay there, he needs work. He was OK on bang-bang plays, but on others his throwing mechanics got out of whack. He also needs work on turning the double play.
After that sort of season, we might be giving Manno a little more of the benefit of the doubt, but if he could smoothly transition to CF.
At 21, Boyd flopped miserably in Palm Beach, hitting .257/.343/.344. Spacious Roger Dean sapped whatever moderate power he had, although you could say the bright spot was that he was still managing to get on base. He stole another 28 bases, but was caught 14 times. The Cards still moved him up the chain and he played for AA Tennessee, where he managed a paltry .646 OPS. At this point, us FR writers would probably be ready to write him off, while hoping against hope he would become a late bloomer.
At age 22, Boyd was sent back down to A ball after hitting just .196 the first two months of the season. This time he was playing full time in the outfield, not really a spot that you want to find a player with Boyd’s skillset…or lack thereof. Upon being demoted, Boyd lit up the Florida State League by hitting .344/.390/.510 over 39 games. Naturally, the club was happy to see him get his offense going and sent him back up to AA but hurt his leg five games in and sat out the rest of the season. BA still ranked him the #10 prospect going into 2005.
Strengths: Boyd has the potential to be a dynamic offensive presence, and when his defensive struggles started to affect him at the plate, the Cardinals decided a change was needed. He has a smooth swing and profiles as a No. 2 hitter with some pop in his bat.
Weaknesses: Though he has taken to the outfield and can make up for many mistakes with his athleticism, Boyd still needs reps to work on his routes and other nuances of outfield play. He played center and left field in the Arizona Fall League, and the Cardinals hope he can play center because he doesn’t profile as well as a corner outfielder. He throws well enough, and his arm could get better with more outfield work.
The Future: The move to the outfield should allow Boyd to move more quickly up the organizational ladder. He’ll open 2004 back in Double-A.
At age 23 Boyd started in AA yet again, this time for Springfield. He stayed healthy but hit just .275/.336/.369 over 502 at bats. He stole 14 bases but was caught 63% of the time. The rap on Boyd was that while he could slap fastballs around the field, he couldn’t hit a breaking ball to save his life, thus AA ate up what was left of his prospect status.
At age 24, Boyd was horrid again for Springfield, but managed somehow to get called up to Memphis. in AAA he hit for a .524 OPS, which was the final straw. Boyd since has journeyed around in the indy leagues and AAA. I’m not sure where he is now.
So what the heck happened? As an amateur the Cardinals had to see some interesting tools, otherwise I can’t see why the would’ve taken him so high. They believed his quick hands, strength, smooth swing and speed would help him become an ideal top of the order hitter, especially if he could play at 2B. Some scouts have said that Boyd never showed a willingness to apply those tools consistently. He’d do something electrifying one moment and the next moment look lost. To me, Boyd is a prime example that as much as tools matter, makeup also matters. He had the athletic ability but for whatever reason he seemed to lack something that would allow him to put them into good use. It’s an enigma to me; I’m not going to pretend I know what that missing link is. One thing is sure, the injuries only exacerbated the problems. Another problem is that Boyd’s glove was too erratic to play at 2B, and lacked the power to play OF. You never want your 1st round pick to end up showing signs of being a “tweener” in their first professional season.
However, the biggest lesson that needs to be learned is to take the best player available, not just the most signable. I’m not sure the Cards have figured that one out quite yet.
Hopefully, #13 won’t be so unlucky for the Cardinals this time. They say luck favors the bold, I’d love to see something bold done this go around, rather then safe and signable. A return to the strategy of the 2005 draft would be nice.
Filed under: Redbird recollections | Tagged: Shaun Boyd
erik
azruavatar
fewgoodcards
roarke49
theredbaaron
Great study - always good to look at what worked and, if possible, why. The question I have is whether his lack of willingness to apply his tools, noted by some scouts, was apparent before he was drafted or whether that did not appear until he was in the system? It is easy to see these ‘desire’ or ‘drive’ traits in hindsight, but the tools are much easier (and likely more reliable) to evaluate at the high school level than the drive.
And I tend to agree with your assesment - ‘take the best player available’ except that signability has to factor into the decision. There is no point in taking a player that is highly unlikely to sign - it is a wasted pick if he doesn’t sign. You should take the best player that you have a reasonable opportunity to sign. First rounders are pretty likely to make it to the big show, and you don’t want to throw away a pic becuase you drafted someone who really wants to experience college (or is unsignable for some other reason). At the same time, first rounders aren’t gauranteed to be worth large signing bonuses - some don’t make it at all. It is a high stakes gamble, and you have to balance the signability issues with the tools/makeup of the player.
I’m going to quibble a bit with your depiction of his time in Peoria. Given his slow start at age 19 in low A, his final numbers look pretty darn good. The defense was obviously disastrous, but that batting line isn’t bad at all for a teenager in the midwest league.
I don’t think signability was the reason. He signed for $1,750,000. Utley signed for just $30,000 more. I think Boyd was at or near slot.
The Cards had another first-rounder that year, Blake Williams, who also signed for slot money, $1,375,000.
IIRC, they went over slot to sign Chris Narveson, their third pick in 2000. Unlike the first two guys, he was awesome before he got hurt.
They weren’t being cheap. They just made terrible choices — a fairly consistent problem with all our drafts from 2000 to 2004.
Lou-I probably should have noted I was quoting Kevin Goldstein. Now that it’s his error, I’ll be sure to assign the credit…er, uh blame on him. looking at some of the other picks that year, doesn’t seem he was too high. I guess he was no Joe Borcard. I think that it was a good year for busts all around.
well the cardinals have the 13th pick again this year. i really hope it isn’t as unlucky as last time.
I really don’t have any faith that the Cards will make the right choice. Their willingness to fall in line with the MLB on slot bonuses is what keeps them from making that choice. Rasmus signed for under slot and they got lucky with that pick. But its hard to have a top notch farm system when you try to find bargains in the draft and try to rely on luck to bail you out.
I there a list of 13’s from past drafts somewhere?
There is one big difference between this year’s 13th-round slot and the one in 2000 that was wasted on Boyd: talent pool. By all accounts, this year’s draft class is quite deep in guys that should be productive at the major-league level, if perhaps lacking in potential superstars. By contrast, 2000 had a LOUSY draft class. Only 15 of the 30 first-round, non-sandwich choices that year ever made it to the bigs, and most have had the proverbial cup of coffee and that’s it. Only two can really be described as stars: Chase Utley and … Adam Wainwright. Adrian Gonzalez and Boof Bonser are useful enough without being stars, and Rocco Baldelli could still be a star if he can get his weird health problems resolved. But that’s all. By comparison, 19, 21 and 19 first-round draftees from 2001, 2002 and 2003, respectively, have made it to the Show, including some actual gems (Mauer, Prior — he was great while he lasted — Teixeira and Bonderman from ‘01, Fielder and Hamel in ‘02, Chad Cordero in ‘03). The situation doesn’t look that much better if you include sandwich picks (6 out of 10, Kelly Johnson and Aaron Heilman being decent and not much more).
Draft choices are not made in a vacuum, and they shouldn’t be analyzed in one either. Yes, Boyd was a dud. So were most other 2000 first rounders, and I don’t think Boyd was any more “wrong” than most of the plausible alternatives would have been. It wasn’t like we should have seen Utley coming, either; as recently as 2005, he wasn’t considered all that promising. Even 13th-round corner infielders pan out … occasionally. It just wasn’t a good year.
That said, I agree that this is not a year for LuMozWitt to be penny pinching and make a signability choice. However, precisely because 2008 looks to be quite a bit better than 2000 in talent, I’m not too worried that they’re going to. Unless an unusually large number of the first-rate prospects developed hypertrophy of the ego, there should be plenty of satisfactory alternatives for them to choose among.
I believe Boyd is in the Atlantic League this year.
Bill, thanks — a terrific and entertaining summary.
Funny how we always talk about “slot” as if it prevents us from drafting and signing the best players. In 2000, adhering to the slots made a lot of teams overpay massively for the best guys in a very weak draft class.