As for the others, Ottavino was very much a “high-ceiling type” just based on the get-go in his arm. Not every high-ceiling type reaches the ceiling, or comes close. I would be rather pressed to say that any of the Walrus alternatives you name for 2008 are really “high-ceiling types,” although most have the potential to contribute as more than replacement-level major leaguers. So, however, does Walrus. He was definitely not a risk-averse selection. In both of these cases, our view of the draft may be colored by the fact that the guys the Cardinals drafted have not panned out. That doesn’t necessarily mean the approach was risk-averse — quite the contrary — or that drafting them was wrong. The Kozma choice was qualitatively different, in that it was clear that his ceiling was not high. He still hasn’t reached it.

I repeat: I simply do not see the problem here that you and others perceive. The “problem” is lack of the clear high-impact talent in the pool by the time it’s been the Cardinals’ turn to draft. I’ll take that “problem” any day.

My issue is this: It has gotten stale IMO and apparently now the front office’s opinion that all the low ceiling drafts from ’06-’08 have produced little more than depth-types. Ok, the Cardinals depth has stunk for pretty much the whole decade. There were some great guys produced by the system (Molina, Pujols, Waino (although originally an ATL pick), now Rasmus and Garcia). But that’s basically been it, besides depth-types. You could throw in Schu, Ryan, maybe Freese, some of the bullpen guys. But there was virtually no drafting of high ceiling types, at least in the ’06-’08 drafts.

By the way, I will respectfully disagree with the notion that there were not any impact types past our picks in any of those drafts.

’09: No prob with the Shelby pick. I have always been under the impression that when the organization decided they were going to put invest more into player development, a Miller-type was the type of pick we would be striving for.

’08: C’mon, can anyone honestly say that they were in 100% belief that Wallace would be our long-term 3B solution? How about Christian Friedrich, Daniel Schlereth, Lonnie Chisenhall, Casey Kelly, Mike Montgomery, Aaron Hicks, Ethan Martin, Craig Kimbrel, Tim Melville….etc, etc. I’ll grant you that none of these guys have done much or anything yet in the bigs, but neither has Wallace. I am on board that he got Holliday, but couldn’t we have gone after maybe higher ceiling type in say the 2cnd or 3rd round? Case in point, was anybody very excited when we drafted Shane Peterson with our 3rd round pick?

’07: I was shocked about picking Kozma. Luhnow’s biggest bone-headed pick IMO. Still on the board was Todd Frazier, Julio Borbon, Brett Cecil, J. Zimmerman, Arencibia, Mike Stanton, and some guy named Porcello.

’06: Ottavino. How about Joba Chamberlain, Chris Tillman, Brett Anderson. A lefty like Anderson, who was considered a pretty safe bet to reach the bigs out of high school, would look pretty darn good in the rotation right now.

2010: You could make a case that Stetson Allie qualifies, but they did sign Tyrell Jenkins, who has similar “impact potential” and was going to be easier to sign. I don’t see any other “impact types” missed in this one.
2009: I certainly don’t see any players with more “potential impact” than Shelby Miller who were still available when Shelby was picked.
2008: You could argue that Ike Davis has more “impact” potential than Walrus, but he sure wasn’t gonna make that impact playing first base for the Cardinals…
2007: Koz, I’ll give you; he was a whiff (although he could still reach the Show, IMO) when not just Porcello but also J. P. Arencibia, Jordan Zimmermann and Mike Stanton (but see Davis caveat) were available. Still, are any of those clear “impact types”? Zimmermann will be if he ever recovers from injury, but that’s a big if.
2006: Chris Coghlan, maybe, but his second year looked merely “adequate” rather than “impact” to me.

The simple fact is that when you’re drafting in the 20th slot or below, “impact types” are few and far between, having gone in the first ten selections 99% of the time.

It’s unfortunate that we’ve had to revert to this method, but Luhnow and Co have supplied the big club with depth, not impact types (excluding Colby and Jaime). I hope that I’m wrong; Craig, Jay, Greene, Descalso, Ottavino, etc will probably enjoy solid careers in the bigs. But to just hand them spots, based on their overall skill sets, seems pretty premature to me. I think that MO’s methods recently have been a bit “Jocketty lite”, but more out of necessity than choice. Again, just my opinions.

Can anyone here honestly say that Luhnow’s drafts have blown them away. A few good picks here and there and depth, but little impact types (or even potential impact types). Too many low-ceiling, safe picks.