Jim Callis of BA's 5/18 mock draft

[Sports Guy]

I don't think we need to worry about Scherzer. Boras realizes there is a very good chance he falls lower than where he was taken last year and he signs with the D-Backs.

If he falls back into the draft I believe he'll go in the 10-20 range.

Bigbird made it sound like we were leaning towards him.

[markpolis]

Bigbird made it sound like we were leaning towards him.

I'd be shocked. Just remember, there is a lot of misinformation floating around regarding the draft.

[Greg Pappas]

I'd be shocked. Just remember, there is a lot of misinformation floating around regarding the draft.

Exactly. I as well would be highly skeptical of Scherzer at #5. If we were willing to deal w/Boras at #5 then other Boras clients would be preferable at that pick.

[Sports Guy]

I'd be shocked. Just remember, there is a lot of misinformation floating around regarding the draft.

I am not sure Bigbird's source is floating misinformation to him.

I hope you are right...I want them to draft one of Weiters, Heyward, Price, Porcello or Vitters.

[bigbird]

I am not sure Bigbird's source is floating misinformation to him.

I hope you are right...I want them to draft one of Weiters, Heyward, Price, Porcello or Vitters.

I said he was on their short list at #5. From what I'm hearing we're going college player in the first round.

[markpolis]

I said he was on their short list at #5. From what I'm hearing we're going college player in the first round.

Wieters or Detwiler.

[RayFink1e]

I think baseball is one of the only sports where you can take the best available player. Why not do it. Paying someone a large bonus will only save us from spending alot more money in FA. Assuming he develops

[bigbird]

I think baseball is one of the only sports where you can take the best available player. Why not do it. Paying someone a large bonus will only save us from spending alot more money in FA. Assuming he develops

This is a major question in baseball. Very good chance he doesn't develop.

[geschinger]

I think baseball is one of the only sports where you can take the best available player. Why not do it. Paying someone a large bonus will only save us from spending alot more money in FA. Assuming he develops

How paying someone a large bonus sames any money in FA. The only way that I can think that it does is it is assumed that by paying out an excessive signing bonus to a draftee that we won't have the money to spend in FA later.

[Moose Milligan]

I agree with SG, we should be taking whoever we want, agent be damned. We're not hurting for money, if this Wieters guy could help us and be at the ML level pretty soon...well, pull the trigger.

I agree with AO's take on the pitching, too. You can never have too much, though I wish we did have a big power bat or two in the minors somewhere...

[Chollie Eckman]

I said he was on their short list at #5. From what I'm hearing we're going college player in the first round.

That probably means a pitcher of dubious stats who will be no more than a middle reliever at best in MLB. Knowing them, the'll shock the world and see something in Brett Cecil that no one else does. #5 should mean no less than a 1 or 2 starter or an everyday player who has at least a 5-10 year career. Not a middle reliever. Picking Moskos, Brackman, or Detweiler will spell the same doom we've seen for ten years. Moskos got lit by FSU a week ago(who wants a player who can't even beat a college team?), Brackman is topping out at 85 now so he's been shut down, and Detweiler just racking up better than average stats against lower than average competition.

If the current scouting staff can't project a HS pitcher better than those guys then we need to find better scouts.

Bottom line is - draft the best talent available. This isn't a needs draft like the NFL.

[hoosiers]

I really don't understand your rants, CE. Detw is pitching to the same competition as Price.

FWIW, Joe Jordan has spent early round picks on the following pitchers - Olson, Erbe, Beato and Britton. All four made their league's top 20 pitchers last year with Olson reaching the AA list a year after being draft, and Erbe and Beato ranked quite high. If Joe Jordan likes a pitcher he sees, I'll trust him.

The only pitchers that I am not eager to see are Moskos, Sherzer and Cecil, but I'll trust Jordan. I think Porcello and Aumont would make for exciting selections. Hitterwise, I would take Wieters, Vitters and Heyward in that order. In order of preference, I like Price, Wieters, Vitters, Heyward, Porcello and Detwiler.

[geschinger]

That probably means a pitcher of dubious stats who will be no more than a middle reliever at best in MLB. Knowing them, the'll shock the world and see something in Brett Cecil that no one else does. #5 should mean no less than a 1 or 2 starter or an everyday player who has at least a 5-10 year career. Not a middle reliever. Picking Moskos, Brackman, or Detweiler will spell the same doom we've seen for ten years. Moskos got lit by FSU a week ago(who wants a player who can't even beat a college team?), Brackman is topping out at 85 now so he's been shut down, and Detweiler just racking up better than average stats against lower than average competition.

If the current scouting staff can't project a HS pitcher better than those guys then we need to find better scouts.

Bottom line is - draft the best talent available. This isn't a needs draft like the NFL.

You can take that too far thogh. You have to factor in risk/reward and sometimes that means taking someone other than the most talented.

As an example, let's say you have two kids talented kids, lets call one Daniel and one Erik. Daniel has unbelievable stuff and he has a ceiling of #1 starter. He may even be the most talented pitcher in the entire draft. Unfortunatley though your scouts say he's got a 40% shot of reaching his potential. Meanwhile Erik has great stuff as well but not quite what Daniel has. Say his ceiling is as a fringe #1, excellent #2 starter but the scouts think he's a sure thing - an 80% chance of reaching his ceiling.

Whom do you take? The more talented (Daniel) or do you pick the slightly less talented (Erik) kid who is much more likely to live up to his potential?

I would argue that the team that factors risk/reward into the equation will end up much better off than the team that goes after the best talent available.

[Chollie Eckman]

I really don't understand your rants, CE. Detw is pitching to the same competition as Price.

FWIW, Joe Jordan has spent early round picks on the following pitchers - Olson, Erbe, Beato and Britton. All four made their league's top 20 pitchers last year with Olson reaching the AA list a year after being draft, and Erbe and Beato ranked quite high. If Joe Jordan likes a pitcher he sees, I'll trust him.

The only pitchers that I am not eager to see are Moskos, Sherzer and Cecil, but I'll trust Jordan. I think Porcello and Aumont would make for exciting selections. Hitterwise, I would take Wieters, Vitters and Heyward in that order. In order of preference, I like Price, Wieters, Vitters, Heyward, Porcello and Detwiler.

Price pitches in the SEC. Detweiler pitches in the Missouri Valley Conference. There is a significantly greater amount of talent in the SEC than the MVC. I'd be willing to bet an All Star team from the MVC couldn't beat the 4th place SEC team(whoever that might be). Now if you are willing to believe a MVC pitcher with good stats can be projected into a #1 or 2 starter in the AL East, OK. I just happen to think there is a huge leap of faith in that logic.

We should expect greatness with this pick. Not just goodness.

[Chollie Eckman]

You can take that too far thogh. You have to factor in risk/reward and sometimes that means taking someone other than the most talented.

As an example, let's say you have two kids talented kids, lets call one Daniel and one Erik. Daniel has unbelievable stuff and he has a ceiling of #1 starter. He may even be the most talented pitcher in the entire draft. Unfortunatley though your scouts say he's got a 40% shot of reaching his potential. Meanwhile Erik has great stuff as well but not quite what Daniel has. Say his ceiling is as a fringe #1, excellent #2 starter but the scouts think he's a sure thing - an 80% chance of reaching his ceiling.

Whom do you take? The more talented (Daniel) or do you pick the slightly less talented (Erik) kid who is much more likely to live up to his potential?

I would argue that the team that factors risk/reward into the equation will end up much better off than the team that goes after the best talent available.

I agree there is a difference in high ceiling vs. talent. Some of the factors involved also are the teams recent success in drafting and on the field in the MLB level. Teams like the Yankees and Red Sox can gamble more than teams that rely on the draft to feed their parent club.

I agree with what you're saying. What I'm saying is there are duds in this draft already and besides Price what other college pitcher is dominating good competition?