Would you draft Bubba Starling?

[ChaosLex]

Poll to come.

Edit: Typo in Choice 3. Should say "wouldn't be able to develop him properly." Sorry about that.

[weams]

Poll to come.

Absolutely.

[weams]

<iframe width="560" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/B5emmkqFYeg" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=5366750

[Can_of_corn]

If Hultzen is there at four I pick him, if he isn't then yes Starling would be in my mix at #4.

[ChaosLex]

If Hultzen is there at four I pick him, if he isn't then yes Starling would be in my mix at #4.

This draft is obviously heavy in pitching, which is certainly a good thing. That said, I'll be damned if a future lineup including Machado and Starling doesn't make me salivate.

[Can_of_corn]

This draft is obviously heavy in pitching, which is certainly a good thing. That said, I'll be damned if a future lineup including Machado and Starling doesn't make me salivate.

But will they make it to Baltimore in time to also have Wieters, Markakis and Jones in the lineup?

[RVAbird]

He's third on my board, so yes. Then again, Baltimore does not have a good track record with developing hitters and Starling has not focused extensively on the game.

His natural athleticism and ability to pick things up quickly lead me to believe he'll develop nicely in just about any system, though.

[Greg Pappas]

We should take the best player on our board. We are not in a position, especially with an overall weak system, to pick specific types of players. College guys like Rendon or Cole would be great, in that they would likely arrive a couple years before a High School kid would, but if you have Starling as your highest rated player, and I would think that is a real possibility, we should take him.

[eb45]

Torn between him and Bundy. Went with the first option because O's passing on him for anyone but Bundy, Cole, or Rendon would make me... not quite upset or even disappointed, but some mild version of those two things.

[ccbird]

No, all the reasons listed are valid but mostly because there are too many quality college arms that are going to be available at 4.

[Jammer7]

I would take Starling after Cole and Rendon. He is a game changer, regardless of the player development system's shortcomings. Great talent finds a way, even if he has to seek outside help.

Not one of the supposed elite college pitchers beyond Cole really has wowed me. I would probably take Bundy after Cole as far as pitchers go. I have seen Gray and Bradley recently and I just wasn't blown away.

[RVAbird]

No, all the reasons listed are valid but mostly because there are too many quality college arms that are going to be available at 4.

The draft is definitely thick at the top on starting pitchers, but the question you have to ask is whether, individually, any of them is better than Starling.

To me, Cole is a guy who comfortably meets that condition. There are no other obvious choices. Ceiling wise, Gray is right there for me, but the command (and to a lesser extent the size/effort) is an issue.

I love Hultzen, Bradley and Jungmann. Meyer, Bauer, Barnes and several others can be added to the list of excellent college pitchers. But is any one of them clearly better than Starling?

[ccbird]

The draft is definitely thick at the top on starting pitchers, but the question you have to ask is whether, individually, any of them is better than Starling.

To me, Cole is a guy who comfortably meets that condition. There are no other obvious choices. Ceiling wise, Gray is right there for me, but the command (and to a lesser extent the size/effort) is an issue.

I love Hultzen, Bradley and Jungmann. Meyer, Bauer, Barnes and several others can be added to the list of excellent college pitchers. But is any one of them clearly better than Starling?

Let me throw it back at you. Is Sterling clearly better than them or is his potential clearly that much higher than them. I like Sterling and I'm not overly concerned with taking a HS bat or being able to develop him. However, from what I gather a lot the college pitchers are relatively "safe" ,can move quickly, and also have a very high ceilings themselves. Those 3 things combined is what pushes me in that direction.

[RVAbird]

Let me throw it back at you. Is Sterling clearly better than them or is his potential clearly that much higher than them. I like Sterling and I'm not overly concerned with taking a HS bat or being able to develop him. However, from what I gather a lot the college pitchers are relatively "safe" ,can move quickly, and also have a very nice ceilings themselves. Those 3 things combined is what pushes me in that direction.

Perfectly valid questions, though I would caution that you're using very general descriptors in reference to individuals. Starling is not your prototypical "raw athlete," in that his question marks come from a lack of commitment to the game at this stage rather than an inability to pick up on the game. He's highly coachable and picks up on nuances quickly, so I don't think he necessarily comes with the risk that most guys who get described that way come with.

He is a very, very special talent. He might have the highest ceiling in the draft. He does carry more risk than a Hultzen or a Bauer. I think taking one of the top college arms is a defensible decision.

Personally, I like the potential for a truly elite, impact player at 1:4 over a good bet for above average production with the hope for something a little more. Risk/reward definitely needs to be weighed, but every pitching prospect comes with his own risk profile as well. It's an interesting conversation to have.

[aggie]

in a heart beat