Twitter Reactions to Cardinals Selection of Kolten Wong
Posted on June 6th, 2011 by azruavatar in 2011 MLB Draft, Kolten Wong
Don’t dismiss Kolten Wong because he’s a 2B. He can really rake and play.
Loved Wong three years ago out of high school, top player in Hawaii then when he was thought to maybe be a C or CF
Means he lacks tools. RT @jryager: @keithlaw MLB guys kept saying Kolton Wong is a “winner”. what the hell does that mean?
Jeff Luhnow (via BJ Rains):
Luhnow said Cardinals had pool of five guys they hoped to get. Wong was the only guy of the five still left on the board.
Entries (RSS)
I’d be curious to know who the other four in that group of five were
Pulled this from a discussion thread at STL Today. This may explain part of the connection here to us draftinh Wong
barneybt2 said on: June 7, 2011, 12:45 am
Good evening,
Relax!!! Stop hyper-ventilating.
This KW (Kay Dub) is a baseball player. Period. Case Closed. End of Report.
I’m a season ticket holder, and KW is a very quality human being and a most superior baseball player.
He’s offensively been successful in the Cape Cod League.
He’s played the outfield for UH. He’s a team player.
And, oh can KW hit!!!
Last year’s draft pick, Greg Garcia, hails from California and is also a UH Warrior. He played shortstop at UH. A UH Warrior middle infield for our beloved Cardinals???
UH Coach, Mike Trapasso, is a Saint Louis native.
Looks like I’m gonna have to forsake the “tsunami”, store my long board, and travel to my hometown of Saint Louis to root on KW, GG, and our beloved Cardinals.
I’m so happy for the Wong Family!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Go KW, and go Cardinals!!!
http://www.stltoday.com/sports/baseball/professional/cardinal-beat/article_7bd64b2e-90a3-11e0-970b-001a4bcf6878.html?mode=comments
Luhnow’s comment makes me think they were wanting college arms one of the HS ss (baez, lindor)
Alex Meyer and Stephenson were still on the board as solid options.
equally important, what does this say about cox’s ultimate position
doesn’t sound like they expect it to be 2nd
they never did…they have repeatedly said he is a 3rd baseman
Luhnow said in an interview uhhh I guess Cox is a 3rd baseman. I guesss we were ruling out hs arms if Wong was the only one left. My guess is Luhnow is feeling the head already and he made it up.
Doubtful. His success will be judged on their contribution to the team. Not fans reaction the day after.
I hope Wong signs within the next couple weeks so he can get some solid time in the minors this year. Maybe he can start to show he has more potential.
If Keith Law dislike Kozma, he is going to dislike Wong.
But lets see what the Cards do in the totality of the draft and in Latin America, not just focus on the first pick.
I don’t really remember Law disliking Kozma.
I really don’t see him “disliking” Wong either.
Law hates Wong.
His answer to the question “what keeps Kolten Wong out of your top 50?”:
“Better question: Why would he be there? 5’8″, can’t run, lacks power, not a good defender at 2b. Doesn’t make sense to rate a guy without upside there.”
I tend to agree with Law obviously.
Luhnow said they were looking to add organizational depth on the infield and he should be a fast mover. You don’t draft for depth in the first round with the top hs arm available.
Apparently, you do.
Yes you do. Teams do it all the time. I never recall a draft that went HS arms only. Drafting only HS Arms might be the dumbest draft strategy ever.
I kind of like this pick. This system has so many high ceiling arms and sorched earth in the middle infield. Plus Kevin Goldstein had him rank as the 20th best player going into the draft. I know Law doesn’t like him, but Law has always put a hugh emphasis on high upside players over solid, high probability players. It’s easy to compare this pick to Kozma, but that’s really shortchanging what Wong brings to the table.
I’m not as down on the pick as some others are. The Cardinals are really lacking in middle-infield depth and really need to make use of the draft to fill those holes. He is NOT Kozma. He also isn’t an All-Star, but he should rise relatively quickly and gives the farm one of the more consistent bats from a guy who can actually stick at 2nd base. I don’t love the pick and would have loved to have seen them take one of the many arms in a deep draft like this, but they’re not exactly lacking in that area the way they are in the middle infield.
Teams absolutely should not draft for need. Just b/c we’re lacking middle infielders doesn’t mean we should draft one. We should be drafting the best player available and preferably should be selecting some high-upside players. Drafting low-upside college hitters has become a trend that we need to break.
Agree.. the first round you should draft players with high upside…. Not undersized players. That’s for later in the draft like after the 5th round. Its just irritating to see them year after year draft undersized guys. This is why we don’t see any potential Mike Stantons in our system ever.
Drafting only high upside…That is a sure fire way to have a terrible farm system.
They didn’t. They took one of the best players available. The cards are lucky so many good hitters keep falling to them.
Low upside? He was rated as one of the best hitters in the draft. Low upside would be a single hitting, .250 Cesar Izturus. That isn’t this guy. Comps are comming out as Freddy sanchez and other quality ML hitters.
Second, where did you ever read that drafting only high risk players is the way to go? Balance is what is needed.
This pick is a nice compliment to last year’s high risk gambles of Blair and Jenkins.
Blair wasn’t a high risk pick. I agree with your other points, but with the exception of Jenkins, last year’s draft was quite conservative IMO.
Seth Blair was not conservative. He was a project.
Wasn’t considered the sort of high-upside player people are advocating. He was supposed to come with 3-4 competent pitches and decent make-up on the mound, but with a bit of a lack of polish and limited upside (#3 at the absolute most). The surprising lack of control only seems to have manifested itself this year.
So, I disagree. He was a conservative pick with a few blemishes but I think he’d have been expected to have a high % chance of making the majors in some capacity.
I’m not advocating drafting strictly for need. The Cardinals were looking at pitchers, but they guys they wanted were taken by the time their pick rolled around. They had Wong and took him, instead. It’s not like Wong was a reach in the same way Kozma was. Several sites had him going 20th to the Rockies. I was just explaining that I don’t think it’s a terrible pick in that they need middle infielders with projectable bats, and that’s what Wong brings to the table. I don’t love the pick, but some people are overreacting.
Why do you draft for need and depth in one of the deepest drafts in years. The number 3 HS arm Taylor Guerriri BA’s 10th best prospect was still on the board. This was another Shelby Miller falling to us situation but this time we choose the guy who has already peaked in terms of potential. Luhnow himself said Wong’s best assest is his bat and we think he can be average at 2b.
I guess about 20 other teams didn’t rate him 10th best either.
The issue was supposedly his makeup and had to do with him transfering schools so he could play against better competition. I guess they had to prove he had actually moved and it’s possible he didn’t actually move. No big deal these things happen where players leave one school to get into a better one for sports. I’m sure Wong will be decent guess I got spoiled with the talk of BPA and us doing it hte last 3 years.
I doubt that was the issue. This isn’t college where teams care about transcripts and stuff.
Money and makeup were the two issues. Surely you don’t think where a guy is drafted has a direct correlation to his talent in the MLB Draft do you?
It’s just a different animal altogether.
peaked in terms of potential? what does that mean and how do you know? If peaked means being a near .350 hitter I could live with that. Not many kids peak at 20 y.o.
Wong is as developed physically as he will ever be, theres no growth or projection. Yes he hit well this year, not sure how great the competition was though. I did read that he stunk it up for Team USA in 2009 and didn’t want to try out in 2010 fearing a repeat performance. For me he would have been a perfect 2nd round pick. I like these type of guys with a second or third round pick. I like 97mph fastballs as a 1st round pick.
Well. let’s look at the competition angle. Wong’s park and schedule OPS was the 2nd highest in college baseball (1st in OBP). Second only to Cron. Cron plays at the highest demanding offensive offensive position, Wong at one of the least. On a park/schedule adjusted basis Wong’s numbers are better than Mahtook or Springer. Wong is also younger than those guys.
I don’t really understand alot of that stuff there. I figured an Hawaii plays a weaker schedule than a Texas or LSU or ASU. I’m sure he will be a good little player, I just don’t like passing on top pitching talent in order to draft for need. Luhnow said that Wong was the best player on our board with that pick. That is just laughable.
It is not just a question of need. It is also a question of risk and opportunity costs.
We took the safe pick, I personally think it’s risker to take a safe pick at the expense of possible front of the rotation guy. Tell me this where is Wong on your prospect list going into next year?
probably in the 4-8 range.
And we would have enough money left over (compared to signing Norris) to sign a Latin prospect that would also fall in the 4-8 range.
Where would Norris have ranked? probably in the 3-6 range.
No reason 2 guys at 4 (or 8) is worse than 1 guy at 3 (or 6)
Dont tell me you believe they are two different budgets unless you want me to sell you a bridge in Brooklyn.
This is an absurd argument. You’re saying that, by selecting Wong instead of Guerreri or someone else, we can now sign a Latin prospect as good as Wong? And we couldn’t have done that if we didn’t draft Wong? In your mind drafting Wong gets us a 2nd prospect that drafting another player couldn’t have gotten us? That’s ridiculous.
Wong was a safe, low upside pick who’ll probably be, as you said, in the 4-8 range in our organization. That doesn’t guarantee us a 2nd 4-8 prospect nor would selecting someone with a higher upside preclude us from signing a 2nd 4-8 prospect.
why is it absurd? I don’t know if the Cards will use the difference in money for that purpose but they certainly could. Could they have done it otherwise? Certainly, but my guess is they do not have an unlimited budget for player acquisistion and development. What is ridiculous is not to consider the financial implications and the opportunity costs of the extra money.
I do believe that Wong was the best player on our board with that pick. Our organization has shown a preference for college guys. While he may not have star potential, Luhnow has preferred the more developed prospects overall I believe. I’m with you that I prefer higher upside prospects, but I don’t see what you are getting at with saying Wong being the highest on our draft board is “laughable”. Do you really think that after paying Cox all that money last year that we are just being cheap. I, for one, do not. I’m gonna go ahead and trust Luhnow & co. and see what the rest of the draft holds.
Also, lets think of it this way. If we somehow end up with a Daniel Norris, Dillon Howard, Josh Bell type guy that falls tomorrow with our second pick, then we played this draft perfectly if we can sign him. In that scenario we would have two first-round grade talents. Wong was going to be long gone by our second pick because he is an easy sign, so we take him to make sure we get our guy in the first round, and then see who falls due to signability and throw some money around with our second pick. This would seem like a fairly adept strategy.
I highly doubt that happens…..I really do. Why not Swihart in the 1st? Plain and simple we should have taken the gift that fell in our laps………Guerrari like we did in 09.
Swihart would’ve been my guy as well. I believe Owens was available too? My four favourites who I thought might last to 22 were Bell (probably not signable, I guess), Owens, Norris and Swihart and I think they were all still there!
All that said, I don’t hate this pick too much. We have a reasonable amount of high-upside talent with guys like Taveras, Jenkins and Martinez in the system, and I’d have been reasonably happy with a first round guy with a reasonable chance of turning into an average or slightly above MLB player (I guess Norris is in that boat, decent mix of upside and high-ish floor I think), which I guess is what we have.
I prefer Wang to Michael, Greene and Cron, all of whom were possible alternatives before the draft (I know Cron went a couple of picks earlier), and looking at his college record more carefully he’s probably a better hitter than I gave him credit for.
Its a joke as well… kinda like Rep. Weiners statement today…..
The cards grabbed a top 25 player. Since when is taking a top 25 player drafting for need?
When a BA Top 10 was on the board, not considered unsignable and has top of the rotation stuff. That’s when.
Ok, So now I get it. You don’t like the pick, so you are resorting to false information to support your case.
So they didn’t take a top HS pitcher, so therefore every draft pick the cards made are terrible players, regaurdless of what the experts say.
The cards pick was received favorably, grabbed one of the top college bats with a late round draft pick. Good thing we have your input to call it a terrible move becasue they didn’t use their 1 pick in the first 50 to grab a low percentage pitcher.
Watch the guys annoucing the pick. Taylor Guerrari was number 10 on the board. How is that false information?
This would have been a perfect year to pick a MI in 2nd through 4th rounds with Phillip Evans, Christian Lopes, Brad Miller available.
You can a 1st round talent hitter in the first round and a first round talent (compared to most years) pitcher in the 2nd round (some even say possibly in the 3rd) What you cant get is a 1st round talent pitcher in the first round and a first round talent (compared to most years) hitter in the 2nd round. One can easily disagree with their strategy but looking at it objectively it should also be seen to have some merit.
You can also have a good bloodlines 2b in Christian Lopes in the 2nd and the 3rd rated HS arm at 22. ALso we don’t know if thats a strategy they could go Brad Miller or Zach McAfee or something like that at 79.
Why would you want good blood lines – I thought you were concerned about BPA?
I’m talking about in the 2nd. If the organization was so concerned with 2b depth I would have been more than happy to go BPA in the 1st and slot at 79. But we go slot at 22 and who knows what at 79. I want the 3rd best HS arm in the 1st because they won’t be around at 79.
and neither would the best college bat in the draft been around at 22nd.
I want BPA in the 2nd just as much as I do in the 1st.
If the team felt Norris was firm on his $4 million demand, I can see why they didn’t draft him.
Almost every ranking has Wong between 20-30. He was not much of a stretch here. You have your preference for a HS pitcher. that’s fine. It just seems silly to go around insinuating the cards made a big mistake solely because they dont agree with your philosophy.
should have said “been around at 79″.
I want BPA available no matter what also but I’m saying I’m assuming since we wouldn’t do it in the 1st and 2nd then its either BPA in 1st then slot in second or vis versa. Don’t get me wrong I’m sure Wong will be ok but passing on a Top of the rotation arm just sucks in my mind. It’s like taking a Jiovini Mier instead of Shelby Miller in 2009.
Is it not somewhat possible that our collective cognitive dissonance is somewhat affected by having a high-risk, low-floor pick pan out (Miller) and a supposed low-risk, average projection one flop (Kozma)?
I like high ceiling guys too but I do sometimes wonder if we’re not being slightly swayed by our own anecdotal evidence.
I agree. Because prospect development is so hard to predict I think that we sometimes behave superstitiously based on our experience. Just because Daryl Jones turned into a pumpkin doesn’t mean that Tommy Pham will too although he brings back that memory. They are two different players. By the same token Kolten Wong is not Pete Kozma and he will have his own path of development.
I don’t know anything about amateur players but the more I hear about Wong the more I actually like the pick. If he hits as advertised it will be a delight to actually see a real second baseman manning the position.
Great reply. Everyone wants us to draft risky picks every year, in some part because they see how well Miller has turned out(so far). It is more exciting to watch Miller come up through the organization than it is to watch others, but that doesn’t mean they cannot flame out.
And my point on Wong is that there were only a couple of guys ranked higher(by BA) on the board than Wong. Yes, Guerrari was one, but the Cards may not have had him ranked as highly. Maybe there are make-up issues with him. Maybe they don’t like his delivery. I don’t know. I know that this was not a stretch to draft Wong. We have to Luhnow and the Cards some leeway here. They have been pretty good in the last few years.
Actually, from what I remember reading the draft is pitcher heavy. So you have better luck finding pitching talent in 2nd trough 4th.
Well sure looks like we didn’t.
My thoughts are kind of mixed on Wong, like many on here, was hoping to nab one of the high upside arms here, but on the other hand, Wong is a solid prospect that should sign cheap, move quickly, and be atleast a solid player at 2nd which we haven’t had for awhile. Now, I think this pick makes even more sense if the Card’s war room is seeing some riskier picks both in signability/upside in the 2nd-5th round, and if they grab some of these types tommorow, I will feel even better about this pick, which i dont feel bad, its just not particularly great either.
I agree but will be extremely pissed if we got college SS or something like that at 79.
Ya, count me in the pissed boat too if we go for another safe fielder or 5’10 college reliever we think will be a starter. However, am holding out hope that we are more aggressive than this like we have been starting to be with our picks the last couple of years. Still some nice players out there that should be there in the next few rounds for us to pick up as long as were willing to.
Based on the cards draft last year the team appears to be very keen to leverage park and environment adjusted college stats. Wong is apparently off the charts in that regard.
Anybody else think he comps to tommy herr? Maybe with less speed and a little less pop?
that should be a little more pop not less sorry its to late for me lol
Why do you think this guy has any pop at all?
Sorry… but this guy will be nothing more than a Shane Robinson… You’ll be surprise when you find out the guy is more like 5-6 160 when he shows up. What a complete joke. You can take undersized guys later. This was definitely the Wong pick… period.
Because his track record says he does. He’s hit for average and power in college and in the Cape Cod League. I think the better question is why do you think he doesn’t have any pop at all?
It looks like every year he hit for lower doubles, and hr’s. His freshman year he had 21 doubles and 11 hr’s and by his junior year he had only 11 2nb and 7 hr. Looks like he didn’t even improve power wise. It also looks like there are conflicting listings on his size 180 or 190. I looked at clips of the guy and he looks more like 5-6 160
http://hawaiiathletics.com/roster.aspx?rp_id=8466&path=bb
He also got pitched to less and less each year. Don’t put much stock in college stats, particularly from the WAC. They just don’t mean that much.
And don’t forget power numbers were down everywhere in college baseball this year. They changed bats and it had a big impact. This kid showed he can handle wood. I am not concerned about his offense.
The idea that the Cards have drafted a guy in the first round without knowing exactly what his height and weight are is laughable.
As a few people have noted his college record is very similar to Pedroia’s (Dustin played in a tougher conference, but Wong played in a much tougher hitter’s park). Obviously Pedroia hit like the top 5 percentile or something of his projection, so I doubt Wong becomes as good, but it looks like he’s a solid hitter. Wouldn’t surprise me if he puts up a pro record like Matt Carpenter.
Players on Law’s Top 100 still available
1. Josh Bell, OF (15)
2. Dillon Howard (18)
3. Anthony Meo, RHP (25)
4. Andrew Susac, C (27)
5. Austin Hedges, C (31)
6. Daniel Norris, LHP (35)
7. Alex Dickerson, OF (37)
8. Charles Tilson, OF (38)
9. Nick Delmonico, C/1B (39)
10. Kyle Winkler, RHP (43)
11. Johnny Eierman, SS (44)
12. Josh Osich, LHP (49)
13. Matt Purke, LHP (100)
btw, this was not an exhaustive list, just all the guys in the top 50 plus Purke
Would love to roll the dice on Purke now at 79 if Howard or Norris are gone.
I’d really like to nab either Hedges or Delmonico, if Norris is off the board. I like Osich’s stuff, but his delivery worries me, and Purke’s shoulder I’m just too leery of.
I have to think teams really believe Bell is going to be an Austin Wilson sort of situation. If it were just a big paycheck he were looking for, I don’t think he would still be on the board.
Agreed on Hedges, he’d be a superb steal at 79. I like the look of Dickerson as well. All that said, you have to believe that every single player ranked above 40 will be gone by the next time we pick, with the possible exception of Bell who I’m guessing isn’t signable.
Osich wouldn’t surprise me after Luhnow said LHP were a priority last year but we basically didn’t pick any until the 6th round, and we don’t have a single left-handed guy in the org who profiles as an impact player in the majors IMO. I’d be happy with Osich at 79, wonder if he could be a Jonathan Sanchez-type or a decent closer down the line.
A lot of people seem keen on Purke but I’d probably only consider him if all the high-upside talent in that list is gone, pretty much. I guess he’s a name but I’d almost rather just have a less risky player in the 2nd.
Winkler’s hurt, isn’t he? If I’m not mistaken, he’s likely to drop as a result of injury.
I’ve read alot of views here,and respect them all. However all must remember we have drafted the most polished hitter available, two years in a row now, with both being infielders. Last year, with the help of supplementals,we were able to add both safe and high upside arms. It remains to be seen what we are able to draft this year, or sign from the Latin player pool.My personal feeling is that baseball as a whole is starting to shift back towards ‘Whitey Ball” and the Cards have done an excellent job of getting the jump on alot of other teams.Defense and contact,with a little speed and heads up players, will make this franchise stay at the top a long time.
I think you could say the most polished hitter 3 out of the last 4 years because you could include wallace.
Never understood why so many teams overlook the hit tool.
Well, this isn’t what I wanted, but I think some of the negativity has gone overboard. We need to remember that this is the same front office that took high upside/high risk guys like Shelby and Jenkins and swung and missed on Austin Wilson (and going back a little further, Kyle Russell). Maybe that they have tempered those risks with more developed college bats like Wallace, Cox and now Wong (who admittedly, isn’t on the same level as Wallace and Cox) should be viewed as wisdom instead of cheapness/cowardice or whatever. I really liked the Cardinals draft last year and while I don’t particularly like the first pick of this draft, I think it is prudent to wait and see what happens in the next few rounds before we get too wound up.
I love the pick. We haven’t had a 2d baseman to get excited about since I can remember. Wong is a bonafide first round selection who could get a bonafide chance at 2d ST 2013… He fields well and hits very well and has a pedigree of experience.
I just spent 3 days in South Bend watching our QC minor league team get shut down by mediocre pitching. We have emphasized pitching for years in the draft and have a pot full of it working its way to the majors. Our position players are too few and far between…particularly at 2d. We have ignored serious 2d base talent like the plague…and continue to pay the price for that.
Wong is being shortchanged by some of you guys and I’m not listening. Pretty sure he hasn’t been 5′ 6″ for a while.
Wong didn’t project top 30 for no reason. Glad we finally took the plunge.
Enough “homilies” about picking BPA and not for need. That’s exactly what got us into the mess of converting a mediocre outfielder into a mediocre 2d baseman.
If he solves our 2B problem, its a great pick.
There is a reason why Wong has been rated firmly in the 1st round of a great draft all year. He is a great baseball player. The bad mouthing of Wong is just stupid. You can really tell who hasn’t seen Wong play and who is just going by the kid being 5’9″ and a 2nd baseman.
I love how many people are pissed off at passing on a kid who COULD be better than Wong in 3-4 years. News flash, high schooler’s don’t often reach their potential. It’s not guaranteed that Guerrieri will be a #2-3 starter.
The fact is that the Cardinals got a potential .300, 10 HR, 15 SB 2nd baseman and he is close to reaching that potential.
I think you’re rating him pretty highly on the average personally. He’s an average defender, average runner, and average power. He has a plus hit tool.
I’ve seen him play against Wichita State. He’s a safe pick, and i’m fine with that, as long as they balance it out with upside next. Imagine if they somehow got Dillon Howard, Eierman or Daniel Norris and paid him? Then all is right with the world.
Wong is a safe little guy, and that’s what most people are saying. His upside is that of a slightly above average 2B’man, and it all comes down to your appetite for risk. I like more upside…as do most of the people unhappy right now. Pick 79 and beyond will go a long way towards rectifying that animosity.
I guess I am one of the few who like this pick. Way I look at him is it’s not his 5’8″ size that matters. It’s the size of his heart. Don’t remember Joe Morgan or Nellie Fox being too tall!! Lets lust see what happens on down the road.