Comments on: Draft Hangover: 2007 Draft

By: Wade

Wade — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 21:09:53 +0000

agree with most of you nmstar, however Joe Mauer was not seen as an overdraft. He was seen as the #2 prospect in that draft and with the money Prior was wanting, lots of people had the Twins taking Mauer #1 overall.

By: Alex

Alex — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 01:50:21 +0000

Of course you don’t need to pick Albert (or Descalso, for that matter) in the first round.

But we have no way of knowing where other teams had Descalso or Todd on their draft boards. Baseball America might have called Descalso a possible 10th round pick, but if some of the Cardinals scouts thought highly enough of him to select him in the third round, then I have to believe at least one other team was thinking of him as a 3rd or 4th round talent. For that reason, I think you have to look at the player’s productivity (and forgive for injuries that couldn’t have been forseen by scouts) in the years following the draft to really decide whether or not the player was picked at an appropriate spot.

By: nmstar

nmstar — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 22:44:16 +0000

While I agree with the concept of avoiding overdrafting a player, a true overdraft can only be avoided if the Cardinals had access to the other 29 teams draft boards or after the draft (when it is too late). It is only with this knowledge could they accurately selecting a player before another team is ready to take a guy. The “consensus opinion” at the time said the Twins were overdrafting Joe Mauer or the Braves with Chipper Jones.

Just because the general consensus says Descalso (or whoever) is a fifth-round choice doesn’t mean one other club is ready to select him in the fourth round or earlier. IMO, they need to select the best player available each time (taking in account signability, etc.) regardless on what the consensus opinion happens to be. Otherwise it seems like you might as well be picking names according to Baseball America’s rankings.

By: Bob

Bob — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 21:29:08 +0000

Agreed, Wade. Joe Montana would have been an overdraft if he’d been taken in the first round–just as Albert Pujols would have. It’s about accumulating the maximum amount of talent.

By: azruavatar

azruavatar — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 19:36:54 +0000

We’re approaching this from two different timesets though. 1) They’re outperforming players in the now. 2) Were they the best draftee available at the time.

Look how quickly the opinion of Descalso has changed this year. If a couple of the players selected after Mortensen turn into better players are we then going to go back to calling him an overdraft? I think the organization has done a really solid job coaching these two prospects. I think, back in the moment of the draft, I would have selected other players.

By: Wade

Wade — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 18:59:23 +0000

at least, that’s my opinion of an overdraft

By: Wade

Wade — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 18:58:39 +0000

The biggest way to tell if someone is an overdraft is if they could have probably been had one or more rounds later than when they were selected. Example: If we could have waited until the 4th round to draft Descalso, then we could have used that 3rd round pick on someone that was taken between our actual 3rd and 4th round pick from that year and also had DD in the 4th round. He may be outperforming some of those players, but the idea of the draft is to get as much talent as you can. If you can get one of the other players in round 3 and then DD in round 4 it nets you more talent.

An example from this year would be Bittle (drafted in round 4). Even if he at some point performs like a 4th rounder, the consensus is that he would have been available in round 5 and probably even later considering his injury and senior status. Thus it becomes an “overdraft.”

By: Alex

Alex — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 16:57:57 +0000

azru,
I don’t see how those picks could be considered ‘overdrafts’ in retrospect; Descalso, Todd, and (to a lesser extent) Mortensen are outperforming nearly all of the players that were selected in the following round.

I’m just pointing this out because at the time of the draft, we were all claiming some of these picks were “absurd” on this very site. It’s just so tough to judge a draft at the time of the draft.

By: azruavatar

azruavatar — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 13:05:47 +0000

I think there’s a distinction to be made between having a successful draft and having the best draft they could. If they had picked Porcello rather than Kozma, this draft would look (right now) even better. Mort and DDescalso have both been good but I still think they could be classified as overdrafts.

By: Bob

Bob — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 12:40:20 +0000

Thanks for the excellent overview, azru!

Regarding Descalso’s defense, he’s turned 67 double plays in 67 games. This is beyond extraordinary, especially when you look at the GB/FB ratios of the top several Springfield pitchers–it is *not* an extreme groundball staff, but rather about average. And DD’s fielding % is solid also. Oh, and he’s hitting southpaws as well as normal people.

I’m not as excited about the ’07 pitchers as some here; I think oft-injured David Kopp, rather than the durable Jess Todd, shoulda been the one switched to the bullpen. And Mortensen has done little to project as more than a plausible 4/5 starter on a good team. (Not that such an arm doesn’t have some value, of course.)

Overall, I’d say it’s a very good draft if Kozma & Descalso turn out to be average-to-above MLB regulars, and any of the hurlers become significant Cardinal contributors. The chances look pretty good right now.