Matusz vs Smoak - Jim Callis perspective

[tywright]

Calling JTrea...

http://www.baseballamerica.com/today/prospects/ask-ba/2009/268219.html

In last year's draft, the Orioles passed on first baseman Justin Smoak in the first round to take lefthander Brian Matusz. Smoak would have made a lot of sense at the time given their need at first base and the fact that he was a high school teammate of Matt Wieters. Matusz is working out well so far, but Smoak is tearing it up as well. At this point, if you were running the Orioles, which player would you rather have?

Matt Revelle

Baltimore

----

Jim Callis -

This may not make a whole lot of sense, but while Smoak is a slightly better prospect, I'd rather have Matusz.

Smoak ranked slightly ahead of Matusz (No. 23 vs. No. 25) on our Top 100 list, and he's off to a .325/.444/.503 start this year in Double-A. Matusz is in high Class A, where he hasn't allowed a run in his last two starts to improve to 4-2, 2.37. In 61 innings, he has a 69-20 K-BB ratio with a .226 opponent average and five homers allowed.

Smoak looks like he could be the next Mark Teixeira, but it's a lot harder to find a frontline starter than it is a quality first baseman.Matusz has done nothing to dispel the notion that he was the best pitcher available in the 2008 draft, and if Baltimore had a chance to redo its pick, I bet they'd opt for Matusz too.

Well Jim Callis had his say. Can this debate be put to rest?

[NewMarketSean]

Sounds like a can't miss either way. I'd rather have te pitching.

[Frobby]

Calling JTrea...

http://www.baseballamerica.com/today/prospects/ask-ba/2009/268219.html

Well Jim Callis had his say. Can this debate be put to rest?

No, because you just reignited it.

As I've said before, I'm far more concerned with whether Matusz turns out to be a front-of-the-rotation starter than I am with whether he turns out to be a better pick than Smoak. If Matusz is a 1 or 2, he'll have been a very good value at no. 4, and I'll never look back. And if Matusz is a bust, I really won't care if Smoak is a bust, also. You can drive yourself nuts looking at players drafted later who had more success than the guy you chose. What's important is that your top picks turn out to be good players.

[QBsILLEST1]

Sounds like a can't miss either way. I'd rather have te pitching.

Yup, rather have the pitching agreed.

[Stotle]

Thanks for posting this, Ty.

I think Callis's opinion is another worth noting, but I'm not sure there's any way to say definitively that one decision is better than another. My preference was Matusz, but I can understand why someone would argue for Smoak.

The only perhaps "misguided" stance, in my opinion, is the stance that one or the other was 100% the better choice. I think many of the Smoak contingent have done just that over the last year.

[Fan4Life]

Hopefully they'll both rise to the Majors on a similar time frame and can actually face eachother at some point where Smoak will go 0-4 with 3 k's.

[Sports Guy]

Calling JTrea...

http://www.baseballamerica.com/today/prospects/ask-ba/2009/268219.html

Well Jim Callis had his say. Can this debate be put to rest?

So, it should be put to rest because Callis says so?

I would still rather have Smoak...Doesn't mean Matusz was a bad pick though.

[Greg Pappas]

No, because you just reignited it.

As I've said before, I'm far more concerned with whether Matusz turns out to be a front-of-the-rotation starter than I am with whether he turns out to be a better pick than Smoak. If Matusz is a 1 or 2, he'll have been a very good value at no. 4, and I'll never look back. And if Matusz is a bust, I really won't care if Smoak is a bust, also. You can drive yourself nuts looking at players drafted later who had more success than the guy you chose. What's important is that your top picks turn out to be good players.

Agreed...

As some of our posters may recall -at the time of the draft last year- I had Smoak rated one rank higher than Matusz, and believed we should have taken Smoak. My stance was short-lived however, and I realized the importance of what AM is/was trying to do... strong pitching abundance. Smoak would also have been a great pick, no doubt, but we need to move forward and past the 'what ifs', and buy into the plan laid before us.

[tywright]

So, it should be put to rest because Callis says so?

I would still rather have Smoak...Doesn't mean Matusz was a bad pick though.

The debate on whether we should have drafted a quality 1B vs a TOR SP was answered pretty well by Mr. Callis, who is an authority on the subject. The question I asked wasn't rhetorical.

Neither are bad picks, but the philsopophy is you draft for upside not to fill holes. In this case Matusz wins out IMO.

[olehippi]

I believe that any knowledgeable baseball fan realizes that good pitching will beat good hitting almost every time. With that in mind, which team would you rather have.....a team with five Brian Matusz's and a average line -up....or a line-up with eight/nine Justin Smoak's and five Adam Eaton's?

[LookinUp]

Are you implying that Eaton is average? Maybe you should substitute Bergesen.

[JTrea81]

Here's my final take on this.

Look at this draft. It is very weak in position players and swimming in pitching.

The 2008 draft was weaker in pitching and strong in position players.

We took a pitcher in a strong hitting class and now that we need a position player to balance our minor league talent, we have a weak draft for that. We had a chance to take Posey, Smoak or Beckham. Only Dustin Ackley might be better than those three out of all the position players available in this draft.

Now that Wieters and Reimold have been promoted, besides Snyder, our position player talent is very weak.

Smoak could have been our starting first baseman as soon as next season IMO. And his production would be very cheap compared to a FA that would produce the same. Nor would we have to trade any assets to get him. The fact that he was teammates with Wieters would just be an added bonus. The stars were perfectly aligned for us to take him, and we passed.

People can say we don't need Smoak because we have Snyder, but Snyder's power is still in question as is his patience. He just simply is not as good of a hitter or a defender at 1B. We could have and should have had Smoak and Snyder. Imagine that lineup...

I know we are going to take another pitcher in this draft as only Ackley makes sense at #5 and he'll be gone, I only hope that taking that pitcher allows us to deal some pitching and get a young corner IF impact bat that we so desperately need. It's just a shame to miss out on that bat and have to skip a year in the draft to find that talent or trade talent to get a player we could have had just for the cost of a signing bonus.

It just goes to show bats like Justin Smoak are not that easy to find.

[Mackus]

Well Jim Callis had his say. Can this debate be put to rest?

There has never been a debate. Both were, are, and will be fantastic prospects who were both very worthy of the #4 pick.

Its perfectly reasonable to prefer one to the other, then, now, and in the future.

The only thing that is not reasonable is saying the Orioles clearly made the right choice in taking Matusz over Smoak, or that they clearly made the wrong choice in taking Matusz over Smoak. Both answers are right. They both would have been fantastic picks.

[Mackus]

Thanks for posting this, Ty.

I think Callis's opinion is another worth noting, but I'm not sure there's any way to say definitively that one decision is better than another. My preference was Matusz, but I can understand why someone would argue for Smoak.

The only perhaps "misguided" stance, in my opinion, is the stance that one or the other was 100% the better choice. I think many of the Smoak contingent have done just that over the last year.

Should have read beyond the OP before posting, because you said exactly what I was going to say.

Except I had preferred Smoak at the time of the draft.

[tywright]

It's funny how a simple question posed by me is more important than the actual content of Callis' comments. Go figure