by Daniel Gettinger
Wow. Now that the Padres have inked Tate, Williams, and Sampson, they have signed 13 of their first 14 picks.
Considering the team took some players who were looking for above-slot bonuses, I am somewhat surprised and very impressed.
I like that the team was willing to pay for talent. Even players like Tate who receive multi-million dollar bonuses are huge bargains compared to what they would receive on the open market.
by Myron Logan
August 17th is a date that looms large for the San Diego Padres organization. The Padres have until then to sign their 2009 amateur draft picks, which include Donavan Tate (first round), Everett Williams (second round), and Keyvius Sampson (fourth round). All three are high school graduates and all three are expected to sign for more than MLB’s recommended slot bonus.
The Padres were almost universally praised in June for changing their draft strategy, which appeared to center around college players and safe signings (two things that often coincide). Breaking that mold, they picked high school prospects in three out of the first four rounds.
Drafting them is one thing, though, signing them is another. As mentioned, signing them is going to require more money than each respective draft position usually gets – in Tate’s situation, that could be as much as $3-4 million. I think there are two clear (quite obvious) reasons why signing these guys (at least two of them, including Tate) is essential for the Padres:
1. The best way to build a consistent winner is through drafting and developing. Young, cost-controlled players are huge for an organization. They provide both on-field value to the team (if they make the majors, of course) and trade value to bring in a proven player or two. The best way to assure that you have these type of players is to load up on talent – sure, sometimes you’ll miss, but when you hit, you’re getting a ton of surplus value.
2. The Padres need to send a message to the fans. With Jake Peavy’s contract out of town, there’s little excuse to not sign these draftees, especially Tate. If the new Padres regime wants to prove they are ready to contend, they have to spend money. There’s no better place to start than in the draft, especially with a rebuilding team.
I’m not worried about any of the three getting signed – I think they all will, and at least two will sign contracts. That said, I don’t want to see the uproar if Tate goes unsigned. It just won’t look good for the organization. In this lost year, we need good things to happen for a change. The draft was one of them – signing the draft picks will be another. .
by Daniel Gettinger
I was recently talking baseball with a friend who was quite worked up about the way major league baseball determines draft order. While he recognized the worst teams should have a shot at the best players,* he also thought it was ridiculous that the Nationals have a good chance of having their mediocrity rewarded with both Stephen Strasburg and Bryce Harper. My friend complained that the current system actually gives some teams an incentive to be as bad as possible.
*For the purposes of this discussion, lets abstract from the fact that due to bonus demands, the best players do not always go to the teams with the worst records.
Personally, I do not believe teams purposely tank games in order to improve their draft position. But my friend’s suggestion for reform stuck me as so fun, I don’t think it matters if the system must be changed. He proposed the implementation of an end of the year tournament in which the worst teams compete for the best draft picks. After discussing the idea for a few minutes, we agreed on the following system:
1) The teams with the eight worst records are eligible for the tournament. Every other team is slotted in the same manner they currently are (by reverse win-loss record).
2) The tournament will be single elimination
3) Every game will be played at the same site.
4) The team that wins the tournament gets the first pick in the draft.
Seriously, what is not to love about a tournament like this? Fans of the worst teams get to watch their team play a few “meaningful” games for the first time in months. Players are not any worse off. At most they will have to play three additional games. Vacation plans will only be pushed back a few days. In addition, there is minimal travel since all the games will be played at the same site.
This tournament is solid fun, still ensures the worst teams get the best draft picks, and is not prohibitively expensive. I would love to see something like it implemented in the near future.
by Mike Rogers
So, I’ve been absent ’round here, well, all year. But, with the MLB draft taking place last week, my forte comes a’callin’ again.
…But not quite yet.
Until then, Paul Depodesta’s taken a look at the 2008 Padres draftees over at his blog. I also took three looks of my own at the Padres college bats taken this time last year.
After perusing the numbers, I must admit that Logan Forsythe’s out-performed my expectations thus far. I thought James Darnell would be the better hitter, as I liked his power potential and his eye at the plate more than Forsythe’s. But, I’m happy to be relatively wrong as Darnell’s only slightly out-performing Forsythe, albeit at a lower level then Logan.
Allan Dykstra really has struggled thus far, but Depodesta notes that they’ve made some adjustments to his swing in Spring Training and that is possibly the cause. His plate discipline has been great thus far (19.5% BB rate), and I suspect that his power will come. I still like James Darnell the most out of the college bats that San Deigo took last year.
Now, as I said before, my college hitters numbers are on the way, but I don’t have an exact date as of yet (nor a real timetable, either). I have 199 hitters — most of which were draft eligible this year — updated with 2009 numbers. I need to flesh those out with the full conference data, and when I do that, I’ll be able to pen something on the college hitters San Deigo took last week. But I can give you a sneak peak.
The Padres top college bat taken in the 2009 draft was Miami (FL) Hurricane’s catcher Jason Hagerty. He had a breakout season in 2009. Of the 199 hitters I have stats for in 2009, Hagerty’s season came out 20th best as judged by my “score” ranking. He had an adjusted wOBA of .447 (26th best in my 2009 numbers), .306 adjusted Isolate Power (20th in my 2009 numbers), while walking 16.5% of the time and striking out 18.8% of the time in 260 plate appearances. The strikeouts are a little disconcerting, but from what I’ve read, he’s likely to stick behind the plate. So, you can live with some offensive short comings for a catcher, as their bats are often less potent and consistent then other position players.
The problem I’ve got with Hagerty is his past performance. I’m always a little leery of breakout players in their Junior seasons. Let’s peruse his 2008 numbers:
64.56 Score*
.358 adjusted wOBA
.220 adjusted IsoP
7.4% BB rate
25.9% K rate
162 PA’s
* = this score is slightly different then my 2009 score. For the 2008 and 2007 seasons, I have calculated an average wOBA for each conference and then adjusted that by the conference’s average park factor and strength of schedule. I use that to get a Runs Above Average number for each hitter in the conference. For instance, in 2008, the average adjusted wOBA in the ACC was .389 — Hagerty was 4.36 runs below the average ACC hitter in 2008. I take this into account in my score, but don’t for 2009 because I don’t have full conference data yet.
And his 2007 numbers:
22.78 Score
.233 adjusted wOBA
.023 adjusted IsoP
9.0% BB rate
27.0% K rate
100 PA’s
The average adjusted wOBA for ACC hitters in 2007 was .383. Hagerty was 13.02 runs below the average ACC hitter in 2007.
Now, these 2007 and 2008 numbers need to be taken with a barrell of salt. Combined, it’s just 262 PA’s, while he had 260 in 2009 alone. He was a utility man of sorts for his first couple of years before finally settling into the starting catchers role this year. So, sporadic playing time in his freshman and sophomore seasons may have been a big part of the bad numbers. That said, I am always a bit skeptical of players that have drastically improved statistics in their junior years. His improvement in the walk and strikeout department is a very good one and if that carries over to the pro game (assuming they sign him), then I think he’s got some offensive upside. As of now, his ability to stick behind the plate could be enough to get him to the majors as at backup backstop.
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.