Myron’s Musings: A change in philosophy?
June 11th, 2009 | Published in College baseball, Myron Logan, Padres, baseball, draft | 7 Comments
by Myron Logan
The Padres have garnered perhaps as much attention as any team for what appears to be a dramatic shift in draft-philosophy this year. Over the past few years, San Diego has consistently shown a preference towards taking college ball players in the amateur draft. For the most part, that has corresponded with the selection of guys with little “signability” issues; players that shouldn’t be too difficult to sign and will likely not demand over-slot money.
In the 2007 draft, for instance, they passed on high school right hander Rick Porcello and opted to sign Arkansas lefty Nick Schmidt. Porcello, a top talent, fell to the Tigers at #27 largely because of fear that he’d demand a large signing bonus.
The Padres strategy, at least from an outsider’s perspective, has appeared to have a couple of angles. One, college players are safer bets to reach the majors and at least turn into solid contributors. There is more reliable data on them, especially in the form of numbers, with most high school stats being close to useless. They are older and more mature, and generally they are a little easier to evaluate.
Secondly, since they have less options than their high school counterparts, college players are generally easier to sign (and cost less money). Schmidt, the junior from Arkansas, ended up signing for $1.3 million (recommend slot money). Porcello, on the other hand, signed for $3.6 mil, well above the recommended slot ($1.2 mil). A similar example, from the same draft, is Andrew Brackman, who fell to the Yanks at #30 and signed for $3.3 million.
While the Padres have gradually improved their farm system year-by-year, slowly the criticism started to mount. College players are fine, but the Padres were getting too college centric, the critics said. They had a farm system full of solid players, but most of them with little upside or star-potential.
In this 2009 draft, the Padres have surprised a lot of people by taking two high school outfielders with their first two picks, Donavan Tate and Everett Williams. In the fourth round, they nabbed highly touted prep pitcher Keyvius Sampson. Three high school players in the first four picks is not what anybody was anticipating, with rumors that the Padres were considering Vanderbilt lefty Mike Minor – of the Nick Schmidt mold – swirling.. All three HS players taken are expected to be somewhat tough to sign, and will probably demand above-slot money.
I thought it would be interested to look at the Padres draft selections since 2006 to really get a sense of their preferences. I separated the draft into three ‘tiers’ and counted up how many college hitters, college pitchers, high school hitters, and high school pitchers San Diego selected in each tier. Note: I counted junior college players in the college bucket, and I didn’t determine whether or not the Padres signed the player. It’s not a detailed analysis, but I think it paints a decent picture:
First Tier (Rounds 1-10)
| Year | College Bat | College Arm | HS Bat | HS Arm | College | HS |
| 2006 | 6 | 4 | 2 | 0 | 10 | 2 |
| 2007 | 7 | 6 | 3 | 1 | 13 | 4 |
| 2008 | 9 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 12 | 1 |
| 2009 | 2 | 4 | 2 | 2 | 6 | 4 |
From 2006-08, the Padres picked 35 college players and just 7 high schoolers in the first 10 rounds. This year, they picked 6 college and 4 HS – and, as mentioned previously, 3 of the first 4 were from HS. It certainly appears to be somewhat of a shift.
Middle Tier (Rounds 11-30 approx.)
| Year | College bat | College Arm | HS Bat | HS Arm | College | HS |
| 2006 | 10 | 7 | 1 | 2 | 17 | 3 |
| 2007 | 8 | 6 | 1 | 0 | 14 | 1 |
| 2008 | 9 | 8 | 0 | 2 | 17 | 2 |
| 2009 | 11 | 8 | 1 | 0 | 19 | 1 |
In the middle of the draft, the Padres have a (recent) history of being tremendously college-heavy. It didn’t change this year, as 19 of the 20 picks came from the college ranks. Overall, from 2006 through 2009, 67 of the 74 ( 91%!) selections have been college players.
Late Rounds (Rounds 31-end)
| Year | College Bat | College Arm | HS Bat | HS Arm | College | HS |
| 2006 | 1 | 2 | 5 | 7 | 3 | 12 |
| 2007 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 0 | 6 | 4 |
| 2008 | 3 | 6 | 2 | 1 | 9 | 3 |
| 2009 | 8 | 8 | 2 | 2 | 16 | 4 |
The bottom of the draft has been all over the place. In 2006, the Pads loaded up on high school players late. But in 2008 and ‘09 combined, they’ve been very college heavy (78%).
Overall, the change in philosophy, if there is one, appears to have taken place at the top of the draft. In the first four rounds, from ‘06-‘08, the Padres took HS players just four times: Kyler Burke, Drew Cumberland, Tommy Toledo (didn’t sign), and Jaff Decker. This year alone, they took three.
But, is it a change in philosophy?
It is easy to look at the past draft results and make some casual observations. It is less clear, however, to truly access the Padres strategy and whether or not it has changed. There are a few potential problems:
“Small sample” – We’re only talking about ten picks here this draft, of which the Padres opted to take four HS players. Even considering all the picks, there really isn’t a ton of data with which to make any substantial claims.
The high school/college distinction– The distinction between college and high school players is not always clear. Is a JC player closer to college or HS? Is a projectable, raw college athlete really the same as a four year college starter? When it comes down to it, each player is truly unique, and it is tough to separate them into four buckets.
A long term plan – Maybe the Padres plan all along was to stock up on college players and replenish the system with depth, then once that was complete, begin to draft higher upside, riskier high school athletes. It’s tough for us to tell, from the outside looking in.
While I’m not sure how much we can conclude based on one draft, I will say that I think it’s a good thing to add more elite high schoolers into the mix. Nick Schmidt, the Padres prospect we talked about earlier, after suffering season ending surgery short after joining the Padres organization, is still stuck in A ball (albeit, pitching well). Porcello, after spending one season in the minors, is already in the Tigers rotation, carrying a 3.98 ERA in 11 starts. He’s about to be worth a whole lot more than that $3.6 million the Tigers initially paid for him, and he’s only taken a couple of years to develop.
While it isn’t necessarily wise to look too much into one pick, the Schmidt/Porcello comparison offers a glimpse into the benefits of taking the talented high school player, and giving him a little more money than you’d like. Some people might criticize the $6 million-plus that Donavan Tate is going to command, but if he develops into the kind of player the Padres are expecting, it will be well worth the price. Hopefully, the Padres can get Tate, Williams, and Sampson signed, or else all of this optimism is premature.
****
Yes, I’m back! As Daniel previously mentioned, I’ve agreed to write an occasional post for Friar Forecast under the heading Myron’s Musings. I’m truly excited about that, as I think Daniel and company have made this into an even better Padres-hangout since my departure. If you can’t get enough of me, I’m also blogging on my own again, too.

June 11th, 2009 at 5:56 pm (#)
“Maybe the Padres plan all along was to stock up on college players and replenish the system with depth, then once that was complete, begin to draft higher upside, riskier high school athletes. It’s tough for us to tell, from the outside looking in.”
I really think that’s what this is. They really seemed to be building a foundation in the form of solid, lower risk players with the last few drafts to allow them to take riskier, flashier players in the future (or as is the case now, the present).
June 11th, 2009 at 7:28 pm (#)
The thing I find most interesting is just how college heavy the Padres have been with their middle round picks. Before seeing that chart, I had no idea how extreme it was. I’m curious if most other teams have a similar slant towards college players in the middle rounds.
June 11th, 2009 at 11:13 pm (#)
Richard, yes, that was one of my ‘theories.’ Though I did listen to Towers today on the radio (h/t Gaslampball), and he did sort of indicate that in the past they focused too much on signabiliy …
Daniel, I’d love to see other team bloggers do this, so we’d have a bit of reference.
June 12th, 2009 at 12:00 am (#)
Maybe, but that’s less baseball philosophy and more financial reality.
June 12th, 2009 at 10:55 am (#)
I read an interview somewhere (MadFriars.com I think) - I think it was DePo but it might have been Fuson… He said essentially what Myron said, they wanted to build depth in the system - restock it - and after last year, they felt they could now go after any player, any position and not worry about holes in the system…
June 12th, 2009 at 4:05 pm (#)
I’ve always taken issue with the notion of “building a foundation” with lower-upside, lower-risk players. A farm system is not a house. It’s not going to collapse if it doesn’t include a certain number of reasonably competent minor leaguers. To put it another way, what good comes of having so many players with limited, or non-existent, major league futures? If I run a high-end competitive restaurant and stock my pantry with mid-and-low range foodstuffs, the pantry may be full but my reviews will be bad and pretty soon I’m not running a high-end restaurant anymore.
I absolutely don’t want the Padres drafting every radar gun wonder or fleet-footed outfielder who fills out his uniform well. But the idea that the farm system needed to be filled with all those pitchability arms and all those corner IF / OF with moderate power and good control of the strike zone before they could dare to take chances on possible stars doesn’t fly. There’s a substantial benefit from getting league-average players from your farm system; the benefit is even greater if you get some better-than-average players as well.
June 12th, 2009 at 6:21 pm (#)
Peter, that’s good, I’m glad my ideas are not completely crazy ; )
Tom, I agree with your main point, I think. I was certainly one of the ones clamoring for the Padres to draft some high-upside guys, even though I was a fan of the college picks as well (some of them, anyway).
I do think, however, that it’s a bit more complicated than that. For instance, you say league average players offer a substantial benefit while better-than-average players offer an even greater benefit.
Right. But league average players offer a *ton* of surplus value, because of the money they save you during the pre-arbitration and arb. years. It whould be interesting to see how the probabilities stack up (made up guesstimates follow):
Tate
Star: 20%
Average: 25%
Journeyman: 25%
Flop: 30%
Kulbacki
Star: 5%
Average: 45%
Journeyman: 40%
Flop: 10%
I wonder if the Padres do some sort of analysis like that, based on comps, scouting reports, stats, etc. I’m just using Kulbacki as an example of a college outfielder. Anyway, the Kulbacki-type pick probably offers a better chance of contributing *some* surplus value to the major league club. Tate has a better chance of creating a ton, but a higher chance of completely flopping, and costing the Padres money in developmental costs.
Both types are needed in the end, I think. And I hope that going forward we have a nice mix.