I am not a big Bowden fan and I don't like the claim in his article that one shouldn't draft a pitcher in the top five slots in the first round just because of who was drafted in that slot in prior years. The evaluation of a prospect should be a unique event, IMO. However, Bowden's generalizations of the recent historical failure rates of the pitchers taken at the very top of a draft class uses the same line of reasoning (again, which I don't like) as is used in the OP of this thread and provides a starkly different conclusion - that the failure rate of SPs who were thought to be the best of their class is quite high. A period which Bowden's article points out includes the Os selection of Brian Matusz.
20/20 hindsight. Which is kind of a cynical way to look at the draft through a retroactive crystal ball.
The Tigers didn't have the greatest scouts ever, or a bunch of wizards, telling them to pick Justin Verlander #2 in 2004. They just had the #2 pick and most of the league would have taken him. Just like in 2006 when the Rockies took Great Reynolds #2, they weren't idiots, he was going to go in the top few picks in any case, but he just didn't work out.
Bowden is going back in time and telling us which lottery numbers were worth it based on which got picked out of the ping pong ball machine.
I like Tork too, but what you have outlined are Mark Trumbo's 162 game avg. And people were upset at his 3yr-37.5 mil contract. So, if that is the player I am getting with defensive limitations, hard pass.
What if EVERY year the MLB holds a pre-season draft, just like Fantasy Baseball? The players can renegotiate a new contract each year based on their most recent experience, and it evens the playing field for all teams.
The players (many of them anyway) clearly don't care about the fans, so let's show them we only care about the uniform.