The one and only Keith Law of ESPN.com was recently kind enough to respond to a few of my questions on the Cardinals draft. I hope you enjoy his replies as much as I did. He made me feel a little better about Brett Wallace and Lance Lynn, and a little worse about the rest of the draft, other than a small handful. (And only a dad of toddler a would know what sort of accessory Tinky Winky carries. I can relate, but we’re not going there with my son for that sake of our own sanity, it’s been strictly Veggie Tales and Finding Nemo over and over again for my boy.)
Well, Here ya go. Enjoy.
You’re in a small company of “Brett Wallace can stick at 3B” believers. We Cardinal fans truly hope you are right. What have you seen of him that makes you think he can stick at the hot corner? And if he doesn’t stick at 3B, is there anywhere else on the diamond they could put him?
He’s not a bad athlete. Somehow he’s gotten the rep of being a bad athlete because of his shape - one team’s scouts called him a “Teletubby,” although I have never seen him carrying a purple handbag - but he’s a fringe-average runner and moves well coming in on balls at third. His lateral range is poor, and his ability to stay at the position will depend on whether the Cardinals can improve that or can get him to read balls well enough to be able to anticipate them better. It’s not a lock, but it’s a possibility, and even if he’s a -10 runs glove there, he’s going to hit like crazy and make it a worthwhile tradeoff.
If he can’t play third, he plays first. But - I know this is blasphemous - your first baseman is a free agent after 2011 (assuming they pick up his option). It’s not certain that the position is filled long-term.
Lance Lynn has been an unpopular pick with the fans for a perceived lack of upside. You ranked him the 23rd best prospect of the draft. Can you tell Cardinal fans why they should start to like this pick a little bit more?
Chance for two plus pitches (fastball that sits 92-93 and a very sharp curve) with good command and very good feel. He should have gone in the first round, especially after a dominant performance against Georgia in the SEC tournament in front of so many scouts, but the last third of that round became Relieverpalooza instead. Crazy me, I like starters.
That said, he barely uses his changeup and he will need it against left-handers. I assume that’s job 1 or 1a for player development with him.
I personally was thrilled to see Nico Vasquez fall to the Cards in the 3rd round. What led him to fall a little bit, and what kind of a player can Cardinal fans expect him to be?
That has the potential to be one of the steals of the day. Worst case scenario is an offensive second baseman with good power and an average glove at second. And I think he has a chance to stay at short - the #1 knock on him as a shortstop is that he can’t run, but unless they’re asking him to catch pop-ups down the right field line, I think that is an overrated criterion - and to hit for average as well as power. He’s a strong kid and can turn on good fastballs.
One thing you did not is that while the Cardinal’s draft was solid, it was also safe and lacked some upside. Can you elaborate on that a little bit?
It’s a typical Luhnow draft - a lot of good-stats college guys, a lot of guys with probability, but not a lot of star potential other than Wallace, arguably Vasquez (where they went against type and took a high school guy), and I suppose Ferrara. All kinds of teams were taking tough-sign kids late on day one and all through day two, and most of these teams will be signing a few of these guys, including clubs that in the past have followed Bud’s marching orders on bonuses.
What the heck happened to Tim Melville? I fully expected him to go no further than the supplemental round, and he fell all the way to the fourth round.
Wanted top-15-picks money and didn’t pitch well enough to get it straight-up. His private pitching coach monkeyed with his delivery - smart, real smart, for a kid who could have gone top 10 overall - and he was getting under his curveball and missing 2-3 mph from his fastball. Plus makeup kid, great pitcher’s build, and I believe that if he signs, the Royals can undo the changes and get him back to where he was in 2007. That’s not guaranteed, of course, and it’s still going to cost them seven figures. I’ve gotten pretty good indications from sources close to the negotiations that he will sign, though.
What Day Two picks of the Cardinals did you like?
I didn’t like their Day Two, obviously, because it was so conservative - good-stats guys, lots of small-college guys who beat up on crap competition all spring, etc. Anthony Ferrara was a good gamble, and he has a chance for two plus secondary pitches, although his health history is more of an unhealth history. Kulik might work out as a reliever, but I think his stuff is short for him to be a starter. Shepherd was the other upside play, as he’s got raw power, but doesn’t bring it to games, finishing fourth on his JC team in slugging. Still, if he showed the raw power in games he wouldn’t have been there in the 13th round, and it makes sense to try to grab a guy with a physical tool like that and see if you can coax it out during games.
Filed under: 2008 MLB draft | Tagged: Anthony Ferrara, Brett Wallace, Devin Shepherd, Keith Law, Lance Lynn, Nico Vasquez, Ryan Kulik, Tim Melville
erik
azruavatar
fewgoodcards
roarke49
theredbaaron
I love Keith Law. I may be one of the few, but the guy brings it. He’s like Jim Rome!
[...] did a Q&A on the Cardinals’ draft over at Future Redbirds. The first commenter made my [...]
I like Law, too, but you can have Jim Rome. Either way, nice interview Erik. I love how these guys (Law, Lunhow and Co.) give some time to interview with the team bloggers. Very cool.
No mention of Blake Murphy? Even though he hasn’t done anything yet, I thought that was a pretty good pick. If Harris signs, that could be a great pick.
I caught two games pitched by Lance Lynn this year and he was mostly 89-91 with a slow curveball. It had some break, but it wasn’t too sharp.
The scouting report that Law is going by is probably from his sophomore year when he would have been a first round pick.
I’m just worried about his arm strength. His velocity took a dip and his curveball looked sharper last summer. Losing arm strength usually leads to a loopy curveball.
Fair but critical analysis of the Luhnow draft philosophy. Not sure I agree but interesting to read Law’s take. Cable was made for opinionated sports analysts like Law. But Law can at least tick off supporting reasons why he takes a stand. One of the better of his breed.
regarding upside. I read this and was thinking of a way of defending Lunhow’s strategy in drafting. So I went to baseball musings lineup analysis tool and played with some numbers. I wanted to compare a lineup with a few superstars and slightly below average role-players (top-heavy lineup) against a lineup with a superstar and a bunch of slightly above average role-players (balanced lineup).
In this comparison - the team OBP and SLG were the same - just the distribution was different - if I increased one players slg, another player(s) slg had to come down. I thought that the well balanced lineup would generate more offense than a top-heavy one.
I was wrong. A top heavy lineup with a few stars at the top can generate more runs than a well balance lineup. In fact, the more top heavy it becomes, the more runs scored. I now understand the ‘lack of upside’ criticism….. to a point.
That being said - the upside always comes with higher risk - and I don’t really understand the ‘economics’ of such a risk/reward scenario well enough to be convinced that high risk/reward should be favored over predictability.
PJ,
Harris was ordered to report to his ship and serve his 5 year military commitment. So he won’t be able to sign with a team until he’s 27…
erik,
Thanks again for taking the time to put these up. I always enjoy reading analysts’ takes on the Cardinals and their drafts. Be sure to thank Keith Law for me as well.
I did not realize the Harris thing had already happened
Thanks
Cards are stats based drafting team….it works for them. But you draft kids for what they can do in the MLB’s, not what they can do in college.
Projection is a tough one….that is where the eyes of your scouts will tell you more then any spread sheet.
They have worn me down when it comes to drafting HS kids..now it almost feels like they are doing us a favor when they draft a HS kid.
You really cant argue with how they turned this farm system around….but you can wonder if their approach could be tinkered and improved.
You wonder why the Cards have so many AAAA players? Why they have so many 4th OF”ers and RH bullpen guys?
That is the direct result of drafting players with a high floor…but low ceiling.
More Daryl Jones….less Daniel Descalso!
I do not fully accept Law’s opinion that the Cards did not take upside gambles down in the draft. They grabbed a handful of high school and jc pitchers (e.g., Fornataro, Siegrist, Notti, Prange, Veres) and have signed about half. Swinson is a speedy CF from a Georgia high school in rd 12.
FWIW, Law trivially errs by stating Shepherd was selected in round 13; it was 11.
Law says nothing of Petersen, Curtis, Gorgen, Fornataro, Kulik, Aaron Luna.
The Cards have long favored college athletes in the draft. Luhnow has not changed this at high rounds, but has had a larger budget enabling the spending of more money at lower rounds. The Cards have seemingly gotten better at selecting or developing in recent years, because more are rising higher in the system than in years past, when the AA and AAA squads hired many minor league free agents.
Off Topic a bit..but anyone seen or head from Fewgood?
Havent seen him in awhile..hope everything is ok!
I would hope that in the coming years they would take some chances on higher upside guys now that the system has turned it around a bit. I’ve seen Lynn pitch and he’s got good stuff, but I don’t see even a middle of the rotation starter. But you never know, they could work on his changeup or have him throwing a splitter or something and he could just be filthy. That’s the beauty to the draft.
fewgood is out of town, I believe.
Ok good…not sure if he in the flood area’s or not.
Just wanted to correct one misconception here:
The scouting report that Law is going by is probably from his sophomore year when he would have been a first round pick.
The scouting report I was going on was my own, from May of 2008, at the SEC tournament, with velocities coming from my own gun.
Beau, I did mention Kulik, and didn’t rattle off the list of names that you rattled off (which doesn’t really constitute an argument, right? It’s just a list) because most of those players just fit into the argument I already made - low-upside college players. Gorgen’s about as good an example of that as you could find: Medium to high probability, fifth starter ceiling.
Well then….good to hear. Still looked pretty poor against Mizzou in the Coral Gables Regional and against Kentucky which was like his last start before the SEC tourney or close to it. And the ESPN gun mostly had him around 89-91 against Mizzou. Of course I’ll always take a true radar reading over a TV reading unless its a JUGS gun(wink) but Mizzou and Kentucky weren’t really fooled by many of his pitches.
His curveball was no plus pitch in either game I saw. It wasn’t sharp and he had little command of it. I thought he looked pretty good for Team USA last summer but he was nowhere near as good in either game I saw this year. Good fastball command was about the only thing that kept him in the game for more than an inning or two.
I’m hoping he can regain the stuff he had his sophomore year. If he does, I think the Cardinals have a really solid pitcher. I keep thinking of Sidney Ponson when he was good, but maybe thats just because they have similar builds haha.
I can’t wait to see how he does in the upper minors. I’m expecting him to dominate the lower levels because of his command.
The blister was a problem in the Mizzou game, he couldnt snap a breaking ball to save his life.
Lynn to me is a guy who can sit 89 to 92mph, but has the 95mph whenever he really needs it.
His fastball has an extra gear when its above the belt, ala Schilling.
We talked about it before…but on March 1st…most of us had Lance Lynn in the discussion for #13 b/c of his style, resume and the Cards tendencies
I think we all agree…if he pitches like 07 he was a very good get…if he pitches like 2008…well its not all that exciting.
Especially with a safe LHP in Brett DeVall still on the board.
Keith:
On Gorgen we may agree. It seems questionable to select a 5′10″ pitcher in Rd 4 when projectable ones are still on the board. (I cannot remember if I had a similar projection reservation about Jess Todd last year, but Todd’s boffo success is tempering my reaction to Gorgen. Gorgen’s pick is the one that causes a wince, but I have learned to look the other way, because of interesting choices at lower rounds.)
There is NOT a high profile (ie, bonus) guy at lower rounds, like the Athletics signing Dixon in rd 10 for $600K. Such picks are fan pleasing. Navy pitcher Harris might qualify as a gamble, one that will prove delayed.
In recent years, the Cards have been signing low profile, young pitchers, down in the draft. This was overdue. Kyle McClellan and AAA LHP Jaime Garcia are successful examples, as are A level pitchers Garceau, Additon, and Diapoules. There may be some more of this ilk among the 2008 selections.
Sorry to miss mention of Kulik. His selection is presumably premised on serving as a reliever. As such, he may turn out to be a good pick.
There was a cascade of college picks. Last year, the Cards turned up 1B Steven Hill and relieve J. D. Dew who could make themselves useful. The minor league system needed an influx of pitchers and the Cards stocked up.
In the end, Lynn’s ultimate value, in my ever so humble opinion, won’t come from dominant numbers, but from the simple bulk of day in, day out dependability. Between his build, his mechanics, and the fact that he relies largely on his fastball and change, ie his lowest stress pitches, I see him as an absolute workhorse. He’ll probably never win a Cy Young, but he will rack up the innings like nobody’s business.
I’m not a huge proponent of the Cards’ conservatism in the draft. Mr. Law is absolutely correct when he says there wasn’t a whole lot of upside taken. Outside of Ferrara, Vasquez, and maybe a couple of the really, really long shots, (guys in the rd 40 or so range) there are some solid role players, but no real stars. To me, this draft looks a lot like 2006, minus, (hopefully) the first round disappointment.
Considering how dreadfully ineffective Lynn was over his final couple of months this year (ERA over 6.00), I’m a little concerned that he was pitching through an as-yet-undiagnosed injury (a la a certain MLB lefty the Cards acquired a few years back). But maybe it was just the blister problem.
Like picklefork, I’d really, really like to see the Cards draft more HS kids in the first 6-8 rounds, especially given the success of guys like Rasmus, Barton, Anderson, and Daryl Jones. (Don’t forget Yadi, too, taken in the 4th round several years back.)
The organization is clearly *much* better at evaluating the young kids than it is at picking advanced college guys–in particular witness painful picks Tyler Greene, Mark Hamilton, and (shudder) Mike Ferris. Ah, yes, Mike Ferris. Taken in the 2nd round, a couple of picks before Dustin Pedroia. That one’s gonna smart for a decade.
Ferris was selected at a time when the Cards had fewer cross-checkers than now. Also Ferris played in the north (Ohio) and only enjoyed success as a junior (there was not a lot of “history” or a multi-year track record of success, as with Wallace and Lynn).
I salute Keith for generously contributing. Yet no one, even Mr. Law, can speak omnisciently about 1,500 drafted players across 30 teams. Thus some more comments.
As value investors, the Cards make a variety of bets. The resulting hodge-podge can defy quick characterizations. Their talent rankings may be probabilistically justified, meaning the team puts weight on high floor players with a multi-year track-record of success, like Wallace, Lynn, and Petersen, to supplement tools. Petersen (2) is a bit like Jon Jay, regarded as a tweener by scouts, strong in pro ball. The Cards are optimistic about Petersen; he is just one year older than Vasquez, but has three college seasons under his belt, since a bright guy in the classroom who matriculated young. The Cards like achievement oriented people. RHP Gorgen (4) had a great record. Curtis (5) was a team-leader at UCLA and hit in the Cape Cod League; he is a bet on a 2B, with multi-year history.
With sufficient rationale of tools, amateur play, and position value, the team will go for less experienced players – “they went against type and took a high school guy.” Rasmus had great amateur history, Darryl Jones was more a tools play, Anderson was advanced, all lefty swingers at premium positions (CF, C). Vasquez, like Kozma in 07 and Greene in 05, plays a valuable position, SS.
A team often follows scouting strengths: the Cards have a scout in Las Vegas to recommend Vasquez, Shepherd, and Scruggs in 08, Pham in 06, Mather in 01, Duncan in 1999. The FL scout is strong on pitchers, the Cards chose 5 young pitchers out of Florida.
About Day 2 (post-5th round) picks, Keith mentioned Ferrara (7), Kulik (8), and Shepherd (11). Fornataro (6) has a fine arm, but is 6 feet; the Cards must not downgrade much for height. Luna (9) had strong amateur experience at Rice U, a tough guy who played football. Swinson (12) is an upside play like Jones, lefty swinger, speedy CF, footballer out of HS. Maybe some $$ bonus? Harris (13) is an upside play, at a cost of waiting five years. Starting pitchers are expensive; he’s worth a gamble.
Mr Law suggests Day 2 selections were “conservative - good-stats guys, lots of small-college guys who beat up on crap competition all spring, etc.” If you delve into details, the picture is more complicated. Castellanos (10) went to a college so small it has not had a player drafted in 25 years, yet a Cuban kid from the same Miami HS as Canseco. RHP McGregor (15) had an unsightly 1-8 record, because his college is a doormat within a good Division 1 league; he throws a sinker, faster than Bradford (18). Flores (16) and Hester (17) went to small colleges; it seems unfair to view the Cards as conservative, when they choose arms from sub-Division 1 programs. [For perspective, the Cards found AA RHP reliever Gregerson as a stats stud at an NAIA school and he made the BA Top 30 this year.] 1B Scruggs (19) hit well at UNLV and could have value if he returns to 3B. Buursma (25) is a side-arming reliever; we have had luck with these (Sillman, Worrell). Reliever Frevert (28) slumped as a junior at Missouri State, a bounce-back play. Reliever Maertz (44) went to a small college, but his stats were ugly; he must have average ML arm strength.
For youth, SS Mateo (20); Babick (43) is this year’s Jon Edwards, a big right-swinging OF; and 7 young pitchers: Bruening (30) has velocity out of Grayson JC; three HS southpaws Leith (31), Jimenez (37), and Miranda (50); and three junior college rhps Notti (36), Prange (48), and Veres (49).
The Cards have already signed 80 percent of picks. Stocking the system helps protect premium prospects. We prefer to avoid minor league vets to fill out teams. We loaded up on 28 pitchers among 51 picks.
In sum, the Cards select from a blend of backgrounds. They like people who they hope may sign for a fair bonus and pump them into an upwardly active farm system.
[...] Keith Law offers answers to Future Redbirds questions over at the most comprehensive Cards minor-league blog going. Among his assertions is this: Wallace [...]
Another exception to Mr. Law’s suggestion the Cards favor collegiates based on their statistics is a southpaw reliever, Freeman, drafted in the low 30s. At U Kansas, he had an ERA over 8 this spring. But Freeman has fine velocity and we will work with him to try to harness his potential.
Rookie ML pitcher Mitch Boggs had a mediocre stats as a reliever when a junior at the Univ. of Georgia. But the Cards selected him in the 5th round in 2005 owing to arm strength and potential.
Another comment in relation to upside potential. The Cards signed toolsy OF Jared Bogany as an UDFA. In 2005, Bogany was ranked just behind Darryl Jones as a Texas amateur in BA, both athletic, but diamonds in the rough. Bogany went to LSU for a year, but the coach was fired, so he moved to Arizona State U, where they did not have time to invest in him as the Cards have done with Jones. Bogany landed at small Lubbock Christian U in 2008, and the Cards were able to sign him after the draft, no longer sought after by other teams.
In 2005, Bogany excited scouts, 3 years later he is forgotten. In terms of physical potential, he should be about the same. If the Cards can give him enough at bats, maybe he could develop. So he’s an upside play, even after 50 rounds. But he’s not trendy and the Cards probably did not bonus him $4.25M like Oakland did with Inoa.
Mr. Law seems to equate collegiate athletes at low rounds with low upside. If thought about as a generality, this view has some reasonable aspects to commend it. Teams can pick off stud athletes coming out of high school and junior colleges, reducing the talent pool coming out of 4 year colleges otherwise. Teams will also try to select the most promising collegiates high in the draft. Therefore, lower round collegiates are intrinsically going to be, you guessed it, talents apt for low rounds, a tautology.
Yet, college juniors and seniors are also going to tend to be older and more ready for pro ball, and require fewer years for training. They will cost less in bonuses and in training costs. So it can make economic sense to select some as the Cards do.
Josh Kinney is a recent year, rare example of a college senior from a small school who rose from undrafted free agent to successful ML reliever.
Its probably best not to assume high school athletes are the good draft picks and collegians at lower rounds are innately bad picks, though many fans will do this. The reality is murkier. The Cards integrate their ranking of amateurs weighing multiple factors and probabilistic outcomes. With more money going into scouting and into bonuses, they have become more effective in their selections in recent years.
I’ve seen Bogany many times. He’s not very good, and not anywhere near as toolsy as you imply above, Beau. I’m not saying they shouldn’t have signed him, just that he’s not really an upside play.
Beau would forthrightly acknowledge he has NOT seen Bogany play (and not seen lots of other amateurs for that matter). Yet Jared got scholarships to two elite college baseball programs, Louisiana State and Arizona State, so he must have at some point have encouraged baseball coaches vastly more knowledgable than the lowly likes of Beau.
In 2005, Bogany ranked in the Top 200 and Baseball America reported “in terms of pure tools, Bogany ranks just behind Jay Bruce and Jordan Danks. But he’s more of a raw athlete than polished player, so he’ll be somewhat of a project. He’s a plus runner with a quick bat and lots of power potential. He has a long way to go to hit better pitching, however. He plays a fine center field and has average arm strength. One scout compares him to Torii Hunter, who had a similar profile coming out of an Arkansas high school and required six years in the minors before putting it all together.”
Bogany hit .300+ at LSU as a freshman. He did not do well at ASU as a sophmore; this is plausible, because its a deep team and if his game was rough, there would be someone to grab the playing time. He went to a Cards tryout camp and showed enough batting practice prowess to warrant an invite.
On the other hand, 29 other teams could have drafted him. He’s a low cost, long-shot project. But some have seen upside.
To put some of the discussion in perspective. Mr. Law and Beau agree about various things. Keith likes Wallace, Lynn, and Vasquez, Ferrera, Kulik and Shepherd. No disagreement.
Beau and Keith share surprise by round 4 selection of 5’10” RHP Gorgen. The guy was fantastic at U-Cal-Irvine, but picks like this perplex us. Beau might have instead chosen someone like 6’8” southpaw Duncan out of Georgia Tech, for a college hurler with physical scope for improvement. Yet given the progress of Skip Schumacker, Jess Todd, and Shane Robertson, Beau prefers to look the other way when the Cards select an athlete of modest size, since they take upside gambles at lower rounds. The Cards likely see Gorgen as a high floor guy, rather than high ceiling.
Beau even shared Keith’s doubts last June about Kozma. Prep shortstops in the first round often do not reach the majors. Kozma does not have an edge from switch-hitting, super speed, or power. Nonetheless, Kozma seems to be holding his own in the Midwest League and the Cards have to be feeling good about their choice.
Keith calls the draft choices conservative, with few having impact potential. Beau is a bit more optimistic and sees interesting potentials in Petersen, Curtis, Fornataro, Luna, Castellanos, Swinson, and Harris. (Luna may compare to Stavinoha and Steven Hill, effective right-swinging hitters out of Texas.) Additional draftees sort into:
• Collegiates with strong stats (e.g., Bravo who went 21-1 at an NAIA school; Curt Smith).
• Candidates for a rebound (e.g., Frevert)
• Young guys who may take time to hone their skills (e.g., Swinson, Mateo, Bruening, Jimenez, Siegrist, and others from junior colleges and high schools) (in recent years, pitchers like Garceau, Jaime Garcia, and Additon have been found at low rounds).
• Collegiates who will at least contribute to minor league teams. In 2002, the Cards found sinker-baller Brad Thompson at Round 16, so useful players can turn up beneath high rounds.
A root question: do the Cards have a reasonable gameplan for selecting US amateurs??? In 2008, is it Wallace, Vasquez, Ferrara, and that’s it, finis? Are the rest of the choices devoid of hope of ML impact or contribution?
In Beau’s opinion, the draft choices represent a combination of aims and ideas, with many reasonable choices. Admittedly, there seem no low round picks who will command a very high bonus, to the best of public knowledge. Fans enjoy high bonuses for low rounds, like $1.45M for Hawksworth, rd 28 in 2001. Big bonuses suggest big talent and nourish loyal fans with hope. Overall, however, there seem a fair share of athletes who could become ML candidates, some day hence.
A Cards’ web site seems an apt place to supplement Keith’s comments with additional ones of a hopeful outlook.
I’ve been away all day, just now catching this.
Beau—I’d highly appreciate it if you showed more respect to our guest. Keith took the time and the effort away from his family and job to answer my questions, and you’re just going on and on and on, being disagreeable for the sake of being disagreeable, at least that’s the way it’s coming across. Cool it, please or take your opinions elsewhere.
Erik: I can understand you being grateful to Keith for being kindly responsive. Since he must cover 30 teams and the best known amateurs, Keith cannot consider draft strategies of individual teams at lower rounds. I supplemented his views with some positive ones about lower picks and concurred on Gorgen. Happy to decamp.
Just wondering, if Jeff Luhnow were in charge of the Cardinals draft the year they drafted Albert Pujols, might they have drafted him in a higher round than the 13th based on his statistics at the junior college he attended? Did anyone consider him to have a low ceiling?