Fegan interviews Hostetler on upcoming draft

[bmags]

this part:

"

Where we were in ‘16, my first draft doing this, it was one of needing to provide as much depth to the organization as possible. We just did. That was obvious by the prospect rankings and where we were as an organization. 

We needed to provide as much in the next two classes as we could to give Rick and Ricky (Renteria) the guys at the big league level to fill those spots as needed. Last season you saw us go toward a few guys — obviously there’s Nick and Steele (Walker) were more advanced hitters — but guys like Lency Delgado, Bryce Bush and Kelvin Maldonado and those guys, we’re…

Swinging more for the fences?

…Starting to get logjammed a little bit and you want to spread it out. We’ve got to make sure we’re having a nice balance and that’s with high school and college, ceiling and production, and also pitcher and hitter. We’ve got to make sure that that stays its course. Those first two drafts we were trying to provide as much as depth as we could. We’ve done a really nice job of that. Last year I think you saw a little bit more of the personality of the department."

 

I uhh, hate this? How does everyone else interpret those paragraphs? I can't tell if i'm reading them correctly.

[BigHurt3515]

I'm not reading much into it, seems pretty vague. They want a balance of college and high school guys and a balance in positioning. Sounds pretty standard I would assume?

Sounds like they want to go college guy in the 1st that can make in impact in two years.

[danman31]

2 hours ago, bmags said:

I uhh, hate this? How does everyone else interpret those paragraphs? I can't tell if i'm reading them correctly.

I'm not sure which part you hate, but it sounds like the philosophy is where it should be now. You can complain about the philosophy they had in 2016 (everyone noticed it and others have criticized it), but at least they're in the right direction now.

[Y2Jimmy0]

2 hours ago, bmags said:

this part:

"

Where we were in ‘16, my first draft doing this, it was one of needing to provide as much depth to the organization as possible. We just did. That was obvious by the prospect rankings and where we were as an organization. 

We needed to provide as much in the next two classes as we could to give Rick and Ricky (Renteria) the guys at the big league level to fill those spots as needed. Last season you saw us go toward a few guys — obviously there’s Nick and Steele (Walker) were more advanced hitters — but guys like Lency Delgado, Bryce Bush and Kelvin Maldonado and those guys, we’re…

Swinging more for the fences?

…Starting to get logjammed a little bit and you want to spread it out. We’ve got to make sure we’re having a nice balance and that’s with high school and college, ceiling and production, and also pitcher and hitter. We’ve got to make sure that that stays its course. Those first two drafts we were trying to provide as much as depth as we could. We’ve done a really nice job of that. Last year I think you saw a little bit more of the personality of the department."

 

I uhh, hate this? How does everyone else interpret those paragraphs? I can't tell if i'm reading them correctly.

I think it's obvious what they did. Their system sucked ass. They wanted to integrate the system with baseball players which they did. His 2016 and 2017 drafts lack some upside but they went with safer college types. While that could potentially hurt system rankings, they will have more big leaguers, guys to trade and better minor league teams in theory. They built a base. We all want more HS guys. That's a fact. I think in 2018, they truly took the BPA (on their board) in the first 3 rounds and they made an effort to splice in some HS talent. I think the need to spend picks on guys with similar profiles to insulate a downtrodden system is over. That doesn't mean HS guys in the first 2 rounds necessarily but I think it means they aren't averse to it. I would expect lots of pitching and college pitching in rounds 3-10. 

[bmags]

I think I just hate most this idea throughout that interview that for kw/hahn/jerry they are obssessed with spending the millions on as much certainty as possible. 

And I wouldn't particularly mind that if we were picking in the back half of the first round. But we are talking about drafts with 3 picks in top 50, an 11th overall and a 3rd overall draft. The idea that our target should be depth is a poor focus.

It also just goes to this idea that screams out when you read them talk about intl and the draft. They always seem to talk about how young players don't pan out. I think they believe it's a waste of money. When discussing yolbert sanchez, someone mentioned how them being in on him for $2 million is an example of how they aren't cheap. But I kinda disagree, it's not about cheap per se, but it is the idea that they are so nervous about spending money toward more volatile player types. They'd rather spend $2 million with more certainty they get something out of Sanchez than 4 $500k 16 year olds who are most likely never going to make it out of A ball.

That's what I read with this interview. College players for them are a CYA. If they drafted a high school guy 3rd overall and they failed, they are going out on a limb in an org that thinks young players are bad investments. If they draft a college player and they struggle? Well, college players are more likely to "work out", they just got unlucky.

 

[Harold's Leg Lift]

They should put a muzzle on this fuckin clown. He's done enough damage.  Go away.

[danman31]

23 minutes ago, bmags said:

I think I just hate most this idea throughout that interview that for kw/hahn/jerry they are obssessed with spending the millions on as much certainty as possible. 

And I wouldn't particularly mind that if we were picking in the back half of the first round. But we are talking about drafts with 3 picks in top 50, an 11th overall and a 3rd overall draft. The idea that our target should be depth is a poor focus.

It also just goes to this idea that screams out when you read them talk about intl and the draft. They always seem to talk about how young players don't pan out. I think they believe it's a waste of money. When discussing yolbert sanchez, someone mentioned how them being in on him for $2 million is an example of how they aren't cheap. But I kinda disagree, it's not about cheap per se, but it is the idea that they are so nervous about spending money toward more volatile player types. They'd rather spend $2 million with more certainty they get something out of Sanchez than 4 $500k 16 year olds who are most likely never going to make it out of A ball.

That's what I read with this interview. College players for them are a CYA. If they drafted a high school guy 3rd overall and they failed, they are going out on a limb in an org that thinks young players are bad investments. If they draft a college player and they struggle? Well, college players are more likely to "work out", they just got unlucky.

 

I don't think I got that out of the interview. I think the explanation as to why they were drafting a certain way is concerning, but it seems clear that he was saying they're going away from that.

This predates Hostetler being in charge, but Courtney Hawkins was far from a sure thing. Tim Anderson the same. One of those was a colossal bust, the other is an emerging MLB player. Even looking at second rounders, Keenyn Walker and Keon Barnum were raw/upside players that didn't come from three years of college. People were complaining that the team was just drafting athletes and not baseball players. Then they draft Madrigal and you have a (hopefully different) crowd complaining that Madrigal is a low-upside guy.

You can bash the organization for the first-round picks of Royce Ring, Lance Broadway, Kyle McCulloch and Aaron Poreda, but those picks are all over a decade ago. At some point, you have to separate that bias and look at what we've seen more recently. As far as first-rounders go, they've done fairly well since Anderson in 13. Anderson and Rodon are solid big leaguers. The book is still out on the rest, but the only one that looks unlikely to at least make it to the majors is Burger and that's just due to injury.

[Chicago White Sox]

So who does everyone think their big five is?  It’s clearly four positional guys and one pitcher.

I’m going to be an optimist and say it’s down to Rutschman, Vaughn, Witt, Abrams, & Lodolo.

[yesterday333]

15 minutes ago, Chicago White Sox said:

So who does everyone think their big five is?  It’s clearly four positional guys and one pitcher.

I’m going to be an optimist and say it’s down to Rutschman, Vaughn, Witt, Abrams, & Lodolo.

I would think Bleday instead of Abrams. No reason in particular, just a great college bat over HS upside.

[SoxBlanco]

52 minutes ago, danman31 said:

I don't think I got that out of the interview. I think the explanation as to why they were drafting a certain way is concerning, but it seems clear that he was saying they're going away from that.

This predates Hostetler being in charge, but Courtney Hawkins was far from a sure thing. Tim Anderson the same. One of those was a colossal bust, the other is an emerging MLB player. Even looking at second rounders, Keenyn Walker and Keon Barnum were raw/upside players that didn't come from three years of college. People were complaining that the team was just drafting athletes and not baseball players. Then they draft Madrigal and you have a (hopefully different) crowd complaining that Madrigal is a low-upside guy.

You can bash the organization for the first-round picks of Royce Ring, Lance Broadway, Kyle McCulloch and Aaron Poreda, but those picks are all over a decade ago. At some point, you have to separate that bias and look at what we've seen more recently. As far as first-rounders go, they've done fairly well since Anderson in 13. Anderson and Rodon are solid big leaguers. The book is still out on the rest, but the only one that looks unlikely to at least make it to the majors is Burger and that's just due to injury.

This is a solid post. Well done.

[Timmy U]

20 minutes ago, yesterday333 said:

I would think Bleday instead of Abrams. No reason in particular, just a great college bat over HS upside.

Also, I think Hahn went to see Bleday fairly early in the college season.  You talk certainty of getting something for their money, he has got to be in their mix.

[bmags]

55 minutes ago, danman31 said:

I don't think I got that out of the interview. I think the explanation as to why they were drafting a certain way is concerning, but it seems clear that he was saying they're going away from that.

This predates Hostetler being in charge, but Courtney Hawkins was far from a sure thing. Tim Anderson the same. One of those was a colossal bust, the other is an emerging MLB player. Even looking at second rounders, Keenyn Walker and Keon Barnum were raw/upside players that didn't come from three years of college. People were complaining that the team was just drafting athletes and not baseball players. Then they draft Madrigal and you have a (hopefully different) crowd complaining that Madrigal is a low-upside guy.

You can bash the organization for the first-round picks of Royce Ring, Lance Broadway, Kyle McCulloch and Aaron Poreda, but those picks are all over a decade ago. At some point, you have to separate that bias and look at what we've seen more recently. As far as first-rounders go, they've done fairly well since Anderson in 13. Anderson and Rodon are solid big leaguers. The book is still out on the rest, but the only one that looks unlikely to at least make it to the majors is Burger and that's just due to injury.

You are right that he does express that they are changing their approach starting last year. My issue is that what he described their process as in 2016/17 was different than what he described at the time. And again, we have the years of interviews of hostetler saying they needed to start balancing out their system with younger players, and then had the 2017 draft that only had one high schooler, an 8th round pick.

As far as bias, yes, drafting recently has been more productive than in 2001-2010, which was the among the worst in the league. But they have also been picking much higher and crucially, have a CBA that eliminated the spending disparities that occurred prior to 2013.

With the new CBA, and an average first round draft position of 7th since their poor 2013 season and I am not going to do backflips for the increased production. Comparing Keenan Walker (47th overall) and Jared Mitchell (23rd overall) to me isn't quite fair compared to looking at a 11th, 10th and 4th overall pick. 

And again, to me my biggest issue is by far their use of 2nd and comp round picks during hostetler's tenure, which again I tend to attribute to an organization-wide mindset of overvaluing more mature prospects due to reduced risk.

But regardless if they took high school profiles or conservative college picks I don't care, they will be judged on those players production. Considering where he has picked and the effort of the org, I'm not quite sold yet. But it may also be the fact that he has more pressure to provide top talent since we don't get any from international still.

[fathom]

59 minutes ago, Chicago White Sox said:

So who does everyone think their big five is?  It’s clearly four positional guys and one pitcher.

I’m going to be an optimist and say it’s down to Rutschman, Vaughn, Witt, Abrams, & Lodolo.

Stott yes, Witt no

[danman31]

13 minutes ago, bmags said:

You are right that he does express that they are changing their approach starting last year. My issue is that what he described their process as in 2016/17 was different than what he described at the time. And again, we have the years of interviews of hostetler saying they needed to start balancing out their system with younger players, and then had the 2017 draft that only had one high schooler, an 8th round pick.

As far as bias, yes, drafting recently has been more productive than in 2001-2010, which was the among the worst in the league. But they have also been picking much higher and crucially, have a CBA that eliminated the spending disparities that occurred prior to 2013.

With the new CBA, and an average first round draft position of 7th since their poor 2013 season and I am not going to do backflips for the increased production. Comparing Keenan Walker (47th overall) and Jared Mitchell (23rd overall) to me isn't quite fair compared to looking at a 11th, 10th and 4th overall pick. 

And again, to me my biggest issue is by far their use of 2nd and comp round picks during hostetler's tenure, which again I tend to attribute to an organization-wide mindset of overvaluing more mature prospects due to reduced risk.

But regardless if they took high school profiles or conservative college picks I don't care, they will be judged on those players production. Considering where he has picked and the effort of the org, I'm not quite sold yet. But it may also be the fact that he has more pressure to provide top talent since we don't get any from international still.

I can't argue with any of this, but I think what you're saying has little to do with your original point.

They signed five high school picks (Lency Delgado, Cabera Weaver, Kelvin Maldonado, Gabriel Ortiz, Bryce Bush) last year. Delgado was a fourth-rounder. Bush appears to be a notable late-rounder overslot signing. Is that the progress you're looking for? That's more to your point than what they've done with first-rounders the last several years, and I still say they've been fairly successful.

[Chicago White Sox]

34 minutes ago, fathom said:

Stott yes, Witt no

Why Stott?  He seems like a huge reach at #3.

[bmags]

7 minutes ago, danman31 said:

I can't argue with any of this, but I think what you're saying has little to do with your original point.

They signed five high school picks (Lency Delgado, Cabera Weaver, Kelvin Maldonado, Gabriel Ortiz, Bryce Bush) last year. Delgado was a fourth-rounder. Bush appears to be a notable late-rounder overslot signing. Is that the progress you're looking for? That's more to your point than what they've done with first-rounders the last several years, and I still say they've been fairly successful.

Frankly, no that's not progress to me because there continues to be a reported preference if (not  stigma) around drafting college over high school with a first round pick, and perhaps that has influenced their evaluation of talent for the second round pick where they continue to be surprised by these "first round grade" position players falling to them in the second round (where they pay them over-slot). 

The high school talent available in that 30-75 range is comparably priced, volatile, but also offers exciting athleticism and tools not usually available by the college players in that area. 

I'm glad bush signed as a 33rd rounder, but I want to see the willingness to invest in younger, raw talent across the spectrum.

And it can pay off huge. For the top 30 of mlb pipeline, 53% of those are high school draft picks (16), 23% are international (7), and just 6 are 4 year college picks (20%). Ian anderson was community college.

Carter Kieboom and Taylor Trammell could both have been selected by the sox in the 2016 comp round where we took Burdi.

They need to take more shots with these younger players that can develop and improve through their promotion to bigger challenges.

 

[GreenSox]

41 minutes ago, bmags said:

Carter Kieboom and Taylor Trammell could both have been selected by the sox in the 2016 comp round where we took Burdi

 

Burdi was just a ridiculous pick on several levels.  Specifically, though was picked to be rushed into the 2016 bullpen....the same thinking that brought in James Shields, and rushed up Fulmer and Anderson.  Ahh the resources Hahn wasted trying to save 2016, which had no chance to be saved.