Matt Baker has a really well written article up on Pete Kozma. To a lot of us, this probably seems like a dead horse, but remember that he’s writing for Springfield where Pete Kozma was recently called up. For the casual S-Cardinal fan, the 2007 draft was probably just another day in their work week.
There’s been a lot of back and forth on this site about Kozmanaut and Rick Porcello. I’ve tried to stay in a middle ground of sorts — Kozma was never the worst draft choice but I was never excited by his talent or thought it was first round caliber talent. It’s not a pleasant position to take because it leaves both flanks open for assault. The Kozma-lovers say I’m underrating his tools/overall package and the Kozma-haters say that I’m not coming down hard enough on a guy who looks like a utility player right now.
One things for sure, Pete Kozma and Rick Porcello are inextricably linked in the minds of Cardinal prospect followers. I think the reason for that linkage is important to decipher. It’s about more than just those two prospects; it’s about the often underwhelming nature of the Cardinal drafts. Jeff Luhnow and Co. operate from a different playbook than we might like. They aren’t going to pick the flashy draftee to appease the hardcore fanbase and I’m certain they have good reasons for the picks that they’re making. That doesn’t make it any less frustrating for us fans though. When an instance comes along that so precisely mimics the macrocosm in micro, well, Pete Porcello and Rick Kozma is born.
After the jump there’s a few quotes from Baker’s piece I want to look at.
Despite the uproar, St. Louis general manager John Mozeliak defended the pick in an interview with the News-Leader earlier this year.
“One of the things we were trying to address at the time was talent at the middle infield. We were looking to draft what we perceived was a legitimate need, and we accomplished that.”
I don’t want to read too much into this quote because it’s defending a specific pick and not an overall philosophy, at least that’s my hope. It’s a dangerously incorrect strategy, imo, to look at the big league club and say in 4 years we need to have middle infield talent ready and, therefore, draft a middle infielder. The perception that I’m left with after reading the quote is that the Cardinals may not be drafting the best available player. Now, Brett Wallace in 2008 would seem to quell those fears but I really find that quote troublesome.
“Did you ever look at all the players who went after him (Kozma)? Not too many have come back to bite anybody,” Mozeliak said.
Without looking up their stats, there are 3 players that I was higher on than Kozma at the time of the draft. JP Arencibia was a catcher drafted by the Blue Jays. He’s put up some decent offensive numbers but nothing world beating. I’ll take a miss on that one. If the Cardinals weren’t going to draft Porcello though, the real problem for me, was that there was other pitchers still on the board with top notch stuff in Michael Main and Tim Alderson. These are the high risk, high reward players that I would have preferred to see the Cardinals gamble on and exactly the kind of player they are habitually reluctant to take. So I think Mozeliak is being a little defensive here and you can make a decent case for several of the players after Kozma and before Mortensen being better draft picks.
“Solid,” Springfield manager Pop Warner described Kozma. “A solid all-around player. And that’s what you want.”
I agree with Warner and it’s important to reiterate. Kozma is young and there’s still room for growth. He is a solid all around player and you do want guys like that on the team. He’s a good prospect and he’ll remain on the top 20 for next year baring something unforeseen. That said, if you asked me if that was what I wanted from a first round draft pick #18 overall. . .I think that might lead to a slightly different answer.
At the end of the day, there shouldn’t be any lingering resentment over this because 1) it’s a decision made that can’t be changed and 2) Kozmanaut is our prospect now. Everyone, even the skeptics, should want him to succeed. Bandage up the wound, bury the hatchet and whatever other cliche analogy you need to read. . .Kozma is ours and his success is part of St. Louis’ success.
Entries (RSS)
Nice way to put it AZ. I know a lot of people would rather have Porcello, but what I don’t get is why so many try to beat down on every mistake Kozma makes and trumpet every good thing Porcello does. Sure it might be a decision you disagree with but can’t you be a fan of your own team and root for Kozma to succeed? I like the kid so far and I hope he ends up being worth more (by your statistic of choice) than Porcello in the end. And that isn’t anything against Porcello that is just wanting our team to succeed.
I will continue to beat this dead horse each year in the weeks leading up to the draft. This is as much about draft strategy and philosophy as it is..the actual players involved.
We could very well see this play out again with Matthew Purke in 8 days.
To me the question is, what is the draft for?
To draft the best player?
or
To draft the best player at a certain price?
PF,
I would have to say that the draft is to “draft the best player that you can sign”. If you can’t sign a player what is the point in drafting him? At least now you get compensation next year for a failed sign but you still end up without a 1st rounder this year.
Now I think the real debate is, why do the Cards think they can’t sign someone? What is the price limitations they are working in?
Porcello is a unique case, one of those you probably make an exception on. More of my main concern is the 500K to 1M extra it might take to get a better player signed.
If you have Mike Minor at 1.5M and Purke wants 2.5M…is there anyone who doesnt believe the upside and potential is higher with the HS’ers. So to me, dont you spend a little more now to save alot more later?
There is risk involved in all picks, we passed on Brett Anderson b/c he was a HS pitcher with risk who was 2 to 3 years away and we took a closer, supposedly safer College SP in Ottavino.
There is risk involved in every pick, this is why I think you put talent in a category by itself and that is how you determine the pick, when you add money into the decision…your likely going to get what you paid for.
I know we have a budget, but if we arent going to spend in free agency and Player Development is the new frontier in STL…shouldnt we start seeing a shift to getting the best players possible, not the best player for a certain amount?
Drafting is hard enough, but when you put even more limitations on it (a budget #) your making it even harder.
Oh I agree, you take the best if you can afford the asking price and 2.5M at that slot should be a no brainer, even if it is over slot. But a 50M contract even for someone like Strasburg has my head spinning. At least the Nats hold all the cards in that pick since they will likely have 1st and 2nd next year if they can’t get him signed for what they want this year.
Whenever I gripe to my son about the Cardinals passing on Porcello he reminds me that 26 teams passed on the guy, before the Tigers selected him at 27.
Hindsight is great and yeah it is definitely too bad the Cardinals didn’t take a chance on the high school pitcher, but as Erik pointed out at least once , not that many first round high school pitchers become the ace of a team , or even contribute at the big league level for several years.
Hopefully now that the middle infield and outfield have plenty of guys , the front office will start drafting pitchers that are potential aces when they get the chance and also the best hitters regardless of position.
I surely get too worked up over this, but to be fair…the other teams did pass on Porcello but they still ended up taking top 100 prospects, like D.Price, Wieters, Heyward, J.Parker, Bumgarner, LaPorta and its not like all the teams have the annual built in fanbase and support we do.
To me, if your going to say its now Draft and Development as a reason why you dont make big free agent moves or take on big contracts or trades.
Then you gotta kind of put your money where your mouth is….sorry but that is just my own view on the situation.
Again, its over and done with and I didnt think Kozma was an awful pick..I just found the logic behind the strategy as flawed and I hope they dont make the same mistake again.
Luhnow has said since then that signability wont be as big of an issue…so they must have realized something was amiss, or they wouldnt have made that change.
bigchief,
Do you think that just because 26 other teams decided to pass on Mr. Porcello, that that absolves the Cardinals from blame of going with signability over talent?
Because I surely don’t. If a team has started to change direction towards a more farm system based approach to player acquisition, and cutting money from the major league club as a further step in that direction. Than it behooves them to spend more money on drafted talent, and not try to have it both ways like the Cardinals seem to be trying to do.
Other wise you end up with mediocrity, while the team that did take the chance ends up with a superstar(s).
Like Pickle said, if Matt Purke falls to number 19, and the Cardinals pass for a lesser talent that will sign for slot, than this conversation will take on a new and more angry tone.
Porcello may have been the high enough ceiling guy to make an exception to the strategy, but wasn’t his bonus to sign about $6 mil? that was not just a few hundred thousand difference. and no one mentions the “high ceiling” guys who get millions and bust…brien taylor, ken patterson, etc. you can’t have it both ways. I agree the cards should take a look at their strategy for drafting pitchers, because the last guy we had who really turned into a good starting pitcher was Dan Haren. we just don’t develop starters well. but to drive the Porcello thing into the ground is silly. the difference between drafting “the best player” or the “best you can sign” is called reality. it appears the cards are attempting to enter more diverse markets for players…Latin America, the Far East…and you can’t throw money at every top prospect every time. business decisions include money, they have to. after a few more years of drafting you’ll know whether the current management way will work or not. if not, then we will be spending a lot of money on pitching whether we want to or not…..or have rotations filled with #5 starters.
While I like the Koz he is a singles hitter period. No power. Maybe he will add another 20 or 30 pounds by the time he is 23 24. No wait! That’s right players are allowed to take roids anymore. Makes me wonder how many players in the 80’s and 90’s were on the Roids. The first 2 that comes to mind is Rickey Henderson & Bo Jackson. I’m really surprised that no one else noticed thier builds. I’ve trained around a lot of roid users at the guy and can tell you there is a difference beteween Roid muscle and natural muscle. You can just see it and those are the 1st two guys that I noticed back in the 80’s.
My math.
Porcello got 3.58M to sign
Kozma got 1.395M to sign.
Cards saved 350K under slot by taking Mortensen (a SR sign)
Cards reportedly offered “roughly” 1M to Kyle Russell.
So if the Cards had an extra million ready to use on Russell, already saved 350K in the sandwich round… couldnt they have come up with what amounts to basically 1 extra million in their budget?
That is what they spend yearly on Toma Ohka’s and Royce Rings of the world.
With the ability to recoup a 1st round draft pick if the guy doesnt sign…I take that gamble every time.
But hey, I dont have a budget or bottomline to worry about….so its easy for me to complain.
PS..this Porcello thing wasnt hindsight 20/20…that irks me..this was a very in the moment discussion.
Looks like Brett “Big All Over” Wallace was 3 for 4 with a HR and Tyler “I’m The Better Greene” was 2 for 5 with HR today.
26 teams did pass on him, and the only ones with an excuse are tampa, baltimore and maybe San Fran.
3% of HS P’s go on and become aces according to my little study. $7M is a lot of $ to give any draft pick (62% fail), let alone a HS P. They biffed the decision, but it’s not like they made an illogical decision.
The thing that really bugs me is I don’t hear Reds fans or Phillies fans or whatever team say the same thing. It’s this talk show radio, message board posting pyscho – babble that says the FO is cheap that causes all this. And it’s really unfair to Kozma. There are much worse picks out of that draft than he (Devin Mesaraco). It’s also not his fault his team has been overaggressive in promoting him.
I too dont buy the excuse, the others teams passed…so why blame the Cardinals? That reminds me of something my mother used to say when I was little, if Johnny jumped off a bridge does that make ok for you to as well?
I am not sure what other teams fanbases are saying or if they are upset, I would hope so, they didnt get the best player available.
But not sure how many teams actually called Porcello and Co. while on the clock with the thought of taking him if what their heard $ what they wanted to hear.
I love studies, I love stats…but the fact is Rick Porcello is pitching in a MLB rotation, putting up better then avg league numbers and is a bargain. The Cards were seemingly ready to take Rick, even in the face of Erik’s solid data and the reason they didnt was monetary.
So I can understand why they didnt do it based on probabilities…but they seemingly didnt say no b/c of that..they said no b/c of money.
I just dont repeat it, basing a pick on money, not talent..that is all I am asking.
Whatever happened to Russell anyways?
Tearing up A-ball.
and striking out at an insanely high clip. Still wish they signed him.
I read Baker’s article before reading the post-jump content. I’m a little surprised that you left out a certain paragraph that deserved some comment.
/poked fun.
“Tearing up” was a bit tongue in cheek. Given his age, less than what he’s doing now would be disappointing.
and I also still wish they had signed him.
I think the major concern is that the Cards have shifted their focus, openly, from pursuing high dollar talent in the FA market and toward player development. Then they passed on a player on whom there was a general consensus was a talent. Obviously everyone passed and felt that the risk was greater than the reward. To suggest that the fact that 26 other teams passed is irrelevent, ignores the obvious. There are 26 other teams that agreed he either wasn’t signable or wasn’t worth the risk. In addition to 3.5 million, didn’t he demand to be on the 40 man roster? Maybe I am confused. Nonetheless, it is clear that many other organizations made the same assessment. While it may have been incorrect in light of current performance, hindsight is always perfect.
Erik’s numbers just don’t support taking big risks on overpaying top talent. Until you develop depth in your organization(of which we had little at that time) you have to make sure you get guys who numbers indicate have a greater likelihood of success.
Now that we have developed more depth, we can start to judge the strategy a little closer. How do we handle certain situations inthe future. We have major-league ready pitching developing in the minors. Boggs, Todd, Garcia(when healthy), Mortenson(in a year or two). You can take more risks.
I am also intrigued by the money being spent on foreign players. We spent $1.2 million on De La Cruz(I think). There is talk we are in on one of the top 3 talents this year, which will likely require paying a couple million. There has to be great risk involved with that. We cannot even be certain about age in some cases. It will be interesting to see this play out over the next couple of years and see how the draft strategy works out.
if they pass on Matt Purke, i think it will be because his mechanics (from my view and others) spell injury, not just his high price tag.
At what point did the Cards “change their philosophy”? At the time of the Kozma draft Jocketty was the GM, but the team was in swift decline.
The Cardinals draft philosophy is simple, “conservative, comfortable projections with moderate leverage”.
The best way I can describe this is, Net Present Value (or IRR). Every major league team when they make their draft selection believes the draftee has positive NPV. Obviously, if the NPV were negative, they would not make the selection. The larger the investment, the greater the financial impact if the draftee were to fail or be a success. Clearly, the Cardinals are conservative investors. They are not willing to expose their portfolio to potential devastating losses. They prefer to make investments that will add limited value, that have moderate upside and downside potential. Opposed to more aggressive investors (Tigers) that believe the unlimited upside potential of a draftee outweighs the limited downside.
I am probably stating the obvious, but from a different perspective. It is important to understand that the Cardinals are in-fact adding value to their farm system. However, it is not as much as many people would like. We could argue that the farm is diversified enough that the Birds could make larger investments and risk in upcoming drafts and still have a portfolio with enough value to provide talent to the big league club. I just never see them pulling the trigger on a draftee with superstar potential because the risk of failure is too great.
Porcello would have been a great pick for the Cards at that time, hopefully they will take some risks in the future drafts when a player of that ability is available. Based on Picklefork’s numbers, the money shouldn’t have been enough to stop the Cardinals from drafting Porcello.
I have two things I want to say.
Picklefork (and the other dead horse beaters), it simply isn’t as black and white as “basing a pick on money, not talent” or vice versa. Can we at least agree on that?
Every team has a budget that is established before June (probably in the offseason). I’m sure there’s plenty of room to adjust that number up or down depending on the owners’ situation, but the point is that no team has unlimited funds to invest into the draft. Everyone agrees so far?
If that’s the case, then the goal for a (good) scouting director has to be collecting the most talent given a budget of $X,XXX,XXX, right? So even though the Cardinals and every other team seemed pretty high on Porcello and he would have been taken in the first 5 picks if money wasn’t an issue, the fact is that money *is* an issue. For every player in the draft, the organization has to decide how much of their cache they are willing to invest.
Can we at least base these kinds of discussions on these assumptions rather than the tired “talent = good & signability = bad” framework?
Finally:
Kozma deserves to be evaluated on his own merits; he has strengths, weaknesses, streaks, slumps, etc. that all have nothing to do with Porcello.
The persistent Porcello-Kozma comparisons are borderline psychotic at this point. I mean, why don’t just start comparing every Cardinals prospect to the highest-priced player they *could* have taken? Jesse Todd vs Austin Romine… Daniel Descalso vs Brad Suttle… Brett Wallace vs. Casey Kelly… Shane Peterson vs. Trey Haley… crazy, no?
Alex: You raise a good argument regarding evaluating Kozma on his own merits. However, who has added more value to their franchise right now? Porcello. Based on projections, who had the potential to add greater value to any franchise? Porcello. Again, did Kozma add value to the Cardinals? Absolutely. However, his value-add is significantly lower than Porcello, but at the same time his value-destroy (I think I just made that term up) is much lower as well.
I am a believer that draftees must be compared against one another no matter the position. It is all about adding value and understanding risk/return. Remember, baseball is a free market enterprise to some degree. You can address needs through trades. If your big league club is lacking in left handed batters, trade for a couple. Unlock the value you have built up in the farm to address the weaknesses you have.
Just some food for thought.
Mozeliak also used the signability issue in reference to Tim Melville(the Wentzville, MO HS grad) last year, who was picked early 4th round by KC, and yes, he signed with a nice bonus. Given that and “the current economy”, Mozeliak’s 2nd favorite term, (w/ “low hanging fruit” No. 1), this draft will be another yawner.
For anyone that is interested, Melville recently began pitching in the Midwest League, and in 3 starts he is 1-2, with an ERA of 3.86, WHIP=0.99.
I was surprised that they did pursue(and actually sign) some of the high dollar Latin players last year. Hopefully, that is not a one year thing. But given the current state of the economy……..low hanging fruit……
Eric,
You know you don’t believe that.
I think we can all agree that if STL did pick Porcello, he wouldn’t be up in the bigs right now. Or if he was, he’d have Boggs seat on the shuttle.