Baseball America...

by Rhody Royals on Sep 12, 2007 3:01 PM EDT

is starting the watch to see who gets the #1 pick in the 2008 draft. So far the Rays, White Sox and Marlins are in the lead in what Baseball America is referring to as the "Pedro Alvarez sweepstakes." Just what we need, another 3B prospect! Alvarez is supposed to be a stud but we're running out of space at 3B (Gordon), 1B (Butler?) and RF (Teahen). Thought it might be of interest...
"Race for the bottom."
http://www.baseballamerica.com/blog/draft/?p=235

Tweet Comment 25 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

we're alive

although i really feel like there are at least 10 teams worse than the royals in reality

by Freneau on Sep 12, 2007 3:10 PM EDT reply actions

like half the NL

Anyone but Terry

by FireBell on Sep 12, 2007 3:14 PM EDT up reply actions

A few weeks ago

I would have said there was no way that we would be in contention for the #1. I agree, I feel that there are a number of teams that are worse than the Royals. But, our record doesn't seem to show that. Maybe it's that we have shown improvements in the personnel department but since we have a number of young guys it hasn't translated into WINS... yet?!?

by Rhody Royals on Sep 12, 2007 3:20 PM EDT up reply actions

We've got no chance

We're more likely to get the #10 pick than the #1 pick.

by Scott McKinney on Sep 12, 2007 3:29 PM EDT reply actions

Who is the top college pitcher

I imagine that is who we will go for.

Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com

by RoyalsRetro on Sep 12, 2007 4:00 PM EDT reply actions

pitchers

LH Brian Matusz from SD State
RH Aaron Crow for Mizzou
RH Tyson Ross from California

by doublestix on Sep 14, 2007 12:28 AM EDT up reply actions

No matter where we draft

we need to pick the best talent available that we can sign. This applies if we have the #1 or the #15 pick. Also just cause we have a lot of 3B/1B prospects that is no reason not to draft one, many change positions anyway. An impact bat is an impact bat. Also, I think the young guys particularly Butler/Gordon will have a big season next year.

by lordbyronk on Sep 12, 2007 4:02 PM EDT reply actions

Well

Particularly if it a HS kid, you gotta pick the talent, even if you have depth. You're always just one broken leg away from not having depth.

by BlueEyesAustin on Sep 12, 2007 4:12 PM EDT reply actions

The Royals don't draft on need

Ladnier and Moore have said that they draft the best talent available, particularly in the first round. And they have clearly done this. If the best player available is a pitcher, they'll take him. If it is a 3B, they'll take him. Signability will be an issue, but it will be much less of an issue at #8 or 9 than at #1 or 2.

by Scott McKinney on Sep 12, 2007 4:13 PM EDT reply actions

I think Moore is misleading people...

I think he does draft on need on a very simple level (pitcher vs hitter), but doesn't draft on need when based on hitter position.

"I DARE you to make less sense."

by dejackso on Sep 12, 2007 4:21 PM EDT up reply actions

You mean Moore and Ladnier are misleading

Both Moore and Ladnier have said that Ladnier runs the draft and makes the draft decisions. And they have both said that they draft the best talent not need. Maybe that is just PR, but I don't think so. The reason I don't think so is because drafting for need in MLB makes no sense. Whoever you draft is likely to not reach the majors for 3-5 years. You have no idea what the need will be for the major league team at that time. The only thing that makes any sense in my mind is drafting the best talent.

by Scott McKinney on Sep 12, 2007 4:38 PM EDT up reply actions

Yeah, they both are misleading...

While it does take some time to reach the majors, it isn't completely silly to draft a pitcher if you need pitching help especially early in the draft. As we have seen recently, a top pitcher can make it to the majors much sooner than that 3-5 year window. Teams tend to draft pitching when they need pitching even if they plan on picking some up from the free agent market.

"I DARE you to make less sense."

by dejackso on Sep 12, 2007 4:44 PM EDT up reply actions

Depends

College kid, I agree with you.

High school picther...not so much.

by BlueEyesAustin on Sep 12, 2007 5:32 PM EDT up reply actions

Good point.

"I DARE you to make less sense."

by dejackso on Sep 12, 2007 5:43 PM EDT up reply actions

Pitcher vs. hitter

Also have to factor in signability. Was Moustakas the best available, the best available hitter or simply the best available that could be signed? If the kid does turn into A-Rod some day then it will look like the "best available." But if he becomes a decent (not stud) player then it will look like another "best available that could be signed" pick. Personally, I would agree with the drafting on need on a very simple level (pitcher vs. hitter) theory that dejackso mentioned. Can never have enough good young pitchers.

by Rhody Royals on Sep 12, 2007 4:43 PM EDT reply actions

KC's draft record leads us to believe that

HS or college isn't an issue since they have picked Moustakas (inf) - HS, Hochevar (SP) - College, and Gordon (3B)- College. They have also shown a willingness to pick either in 2nd round, Sam Runion (SP)- HS, Jason Taylor (Inf) - HS and Jeff Bianchi (inf)- HS.

The Royals need to select best player to fit their draft slot period. Greinke, Lubanski, Butler were all HS so it can work out. Signability hasn't been as much of an issue since the top 1 or 2 picks must be signed. If Royals pick 6-10 then it might be a factor as those guys aren't as clear cut as the top 2 or 3 picks.

My attitude toward pick a college guy since they are closer to the big leagues has changed after watching KC draft Dan Reichart and Jeff Austin and even Jeff Granger in the 90's/early 2000's. They were college guys who were awful as big leaguers.

I'd like to see KC be more aggressive with later picks who have dropped due to signability issues. Rather a kid with talent who wants 100K or 200K than paying a Jason LaRue $2 million for that kind of production.

by daveyork on Sep 12, 2007 6:59 PM EDT reply actions

Either pitcher or position player in second round

not high school or college. I should proof read my own writing better.

by daveyork on Sep 12, 2007 7:00 PM EDT up reply actions

KC's draft tendencies

The Royals did have tendencies in terms of the draft during the Allaird Baird regime (insert joke here, if you like). It's too soon to tell if they have any draft philosophy they currently buy into under Moore (college vs. HS, hitter vs. pitcher, etc.). Part of the reason is that we don't know what influence Moore may have had on the 2006 draft, which took place after he had agreed to a deal as GM but before he officially took over. Officially he played no role in KC's 2006 draft, which would leave us with only one draft to look at under Moore (although I know Ladnier and some other scouting personnel who were retained from the previous regime participated in both the 2006 and 2007 draft). I still find it hard to believe that Dayton Moore wasn't at least aware in advance of the plan to draft and sign Hochevar #1 last year (he had to have at least given his blessing if not suggested it, no?).

by cookierojas73 on Sep 12, 2007 10:59 PM EDT up reply actions

A lesson from this year

An apparent pattern emerged during this year's draft--a lot of H.S. or non-senior college guys (either JC or juniors) in the first 20 rounds or so followed by several college seniors in the later rounds. That seems to be drafting for bigger upside early and for safer bets later, i.e. drafting the future major leaguers younger so that they will be younger by the time they reach KC and thus are playing here in their prime years, and building system depth in the later rounds with guys who are more developed, but with less upside. That seems to reflect Dayton's free agent desires to get younger guys hitting their prime as opposed to older stars, so it may very well reflect a tendency for a preference to draft younger players in the upper rounds, a preference seemingly brought with Dayton from Atlanta.

by CentralChamps2009 on Sep 13, 2007 10:23 AM EDT up reply actions

Good observation on the draft

The Braves liked to go with HS especially in the pitching areas. Most of the later round college guys lack the upside potential but they can help an organization win and that is important, too. I have noticed KC is drafting outfielders who can run - Derrick Robinson, Adrian Ortiz, Jarrod Dyson, Patrick Norris, Brett Bigler. Speed is necessary in KC with the size of the yard.

Really like the KC early pitching picks from HS - Runion, Duffy, Mitchell and Nielson. Takes lots of potential to produce one big leaguer. Good HS pitchers can be found in rounds besides first but it takes the scouts and the development people in the minors.

by daveyork on Sep 13, 2007 6:16 PM EDT up reply actions

2006 draft...

signability was an issue as they passed on Andrew Miller to pick Hochevar. Miller was supposed to have been the #1 ranked player but they passed on him and chose Hochevar who they knew would sign since he had already sat out the previous year. I am all for the best available talent but some times it is just not financially possible for small market teams.

by Rhody Royals on Sep 13, 2007 8:57 AM EDT up reply actions

Same thing

Happened with Porcello.

But the issue isn't really "signability." DM made pretty clear that the issue was really "value for money." For example, if the best player available will cost twice the second best player costs, but will only be marginally better, it's wiser to choose number two and use the saved money elsewhere in the draft.

by BlueEyesAustin on Sep 13, 2007 9:10 AM EDT up reply actions

I'll go with that.

Anything where we can save a little (to hopefully spend on other needs) but not necessarily settle for a lesser player is a good way to go. I'm a little worried about Hochevar so far but for some reason I trust DM's decision making skills. Now, if we can develop these guys and then keep them around for a few years before they become free agents and sign with the yankees will be another story. First steps first though.

by Rhody Royals on Sep 13, 2007 12:15 PM EDT up reply actions

We did sort of do that this year

12th rounder Sean McCauley (gave him 6th round money)
14th rounder Matt Mitchell (signing bonus + college money)
20th rounder Mike Lehmann (same as Mitchell)
31st rounder Keaton Hayenga ($300,000!!!!)

Course it would be great to see a few more Hayenga type signings, but I liked those signings a lot.

by doublestix on Sep 14, 2007 12:28 AM EDT up reply actions

Mitchell looks like he is worth

every penny we spent on him and maybe a few nickels more. He looks like a future star. But, I will wait until he hits Springdale to annoint him with that.

by grudz69 on Sep 14, 2007 2:01 PM EDT up reply actions