Question on 2000 Draft (Borchard)

[kdhargo]

I know it is in retrospect looking back now at the 2000 draft, but after looking at the draft a bit, I had a question pop up that I thought I would ask this knowledge board.

 

The Sox took Borchard at #12 in 2000, with the Phillies taking Utley at #15. We now know today that Utley is the more 'established' MLB-level player, but even w/o such hindsight, why is it that the Sox chose to take Borchard with this pick and not someone like Utley? Utley had better numbers across the board, including power numbers, and he was/is an IF, with Borchard as an OF.

 

So, my question is simple: why did they choose what they did? Wouldn't one have thought that equally (and a bit better) power and average numbers coming from the IF position (Utley) would be more coveted and rarer than from an OF position (Borchard)? Were the Sox that in love with Borchard?

[Rowand44]

I know it is in retrospect looking back now at the 2000 draft, but after looking at the draft a bit, I had a question pop up that I thought I would ask this knowledge board.

 

The Sox took Borchard at #12 in 2000, with the Phillies taking Utley at #15. We now know today that Utley is the more 'established' MLB-level player, but even w/o such hindsight, why is it that the Sox chose to take Borchard with this pick and not someone like Utley? Utley had better numbers across the board, including power numbers, and he was/is an IF, with Borchard as an OF.

 

So, my question is simple: why did they choose what they did? Wouldn't one have thought that equally (and a bit better) power and average numbers coming from the IF position (Utley) would be more coveted and rarer than from an OF position (Borchard)? Were the Sox that in love with Borchard?

I'm sure someone can answer this question better but Borchard had and has all the tools to be a solid major leaguer. Borch has a ton of power potential, good speed, good arm, he's a good defensive outfielder, unfortunately that swing of his has been a little to long and he hasn't been able to put it all together yet. Hopefully he'll figure it out one day whether he's in our organization, the Padres organization or anyone elses.

[DBAHO]

I know it is in retrospect looking back now at the 2000 draft, but after looking at the draft a bit, I had a question pop up that I thought I would ask this knowledge board.

 

The Sox took Borchard at #12 in 2000, with the Phillies taking Utley at #15. We now know today that Utley is the more 'established' MLB-level player, but even w/o such hindsight, why is it that the Sox chose to take Borchard with this pick and not someone like Utley? Utley had better numbers across the board, including power numbers, and he was/is an IF, with Borchard as an OF.

 

So, my question is simple: why did they choose what they did? Wouldn't one have thought that equally (and a bit better) power and average numbers coming from the IF position (Utley) would be more coveted and rarer than from an OF position (Borchard)? Were the Sox that in love with Borchard?

Numbers aren't everything in the college / high school area. Borch probably had more tools than Utley at the time.

[knightni]

Numbers aren't everything in the college / high school area. Borch probably had more tools than Utley at the time.

Joe uses his tools effectively.

[Chisoxfn]

I know it is in retrospect looking back now at the 2000 draft, but after looking at the draft a bit, I had a question pop up that I thought I would ask this knowledge board.

 

The Sox took Borchard at #12 in 2000, with the Phillies taking Utley at #15. We now know today that Utley is the more 'established' MLB-level player, but even w/o such hindsight, why is it that the Sox chose to take Borchard with this pick and not someone like Utley? Utley had better numbers across the board, including power numbers, and he was/is an IF, with Borchard as an OF.

 

So, my question is simple: why did they choose what they did? Wouldn't one have thought that equally (and a bit better) power and average numbers coming from the IF position (Utley) would be more coveted and rarer than from an OF position (Borchard)? Were the Sox that in love with Borchard?

When the Sox took Borchard, I think most experts and analysts thought it was a stellar pick. Had he been willing to sign for a reasonable amount (he got a record signing bonus at the time), he'd of been a top 5 selection.

 

Following his first year (he dominates in Bham as well) he was pretty much on the board as one of the 5 best prospects in all of baseball. Borchard had some injuries after that and was never able to make adjustments to his swing, but I don't think there is any reason to say Utley would of been a better pick at that time.

 

Borchard had a great arm, tons of power, and plus speed. He's a great athlete and at that time looked like a tremendous selection.

[RockRaines]

This is exactly the reason why I feel that it is perfectly ok to trade prospects for major league talent. No matter how thrilled the "scouts" are, they are right only 1 percent of the time. The rest is all fluff. Sox fans should know first hand how many of these cant miss prospects dont make it in the show.

[Palehosefan]

At the time, Borchard was thought of as a 5 tool player with "light tower" power. I saw the game where he actually hit the light tower, it was an amazing shot. But I also noticed in the game that his "amazing" arm was overrated.

 

From BA, he was rated as the best college prospect, and only fell to 12 because of his signing bonus demands as a football prospect also. I will admit, I was VERY excited when we drafted him, I followed the drafts really close back then, and at the time nobody was really worried about his swing. But as time went on, and as he rose in levels, the swing flaw became more and more apparent. At the time, some scouts were saying Borchard had the most power coming out of college since Mark McGwire.

 

Chase Utley was a real good prospect at the time also, but we were in need of OF prospects, and Utley's power wasn't on the same level as Borchards at the time. Also, scouts wondered if Utley could play 2B well enough to stay at the position, alot of scouts thought eventually he would end up in LF or at 3B or would end up as a Todd Walker type 2B with little D.

 

Basically, it was thought to be a great pick at the time and everyone gave us props for it. It wasn't questionable at the time like say Royce Ring's pick.

Edited August 4, 2005 by Palehosefan

[Rowand44]

At the time, Borchard was thought of as a 5 tool player with "light tower" power. I saw the game where he actually hit the light tower, it was an amazing shot. But I also noticed in the game that his "amazing" arm was overrated.

 

From BA, he was rated as the best college prospect, and only fell to 12 because of his signing bonus demands as a football prospect also. I will admit, I was VERY excited when we drafted him, I followed the drafts really close back then, and at the time nobody was really worried about his swing. But as time went on, and as he rose in levels, the swing flaw became more and more apparent. At the time, some scouts were saying Borchard had the most power coming out of college since Mark McGwire.

 

Chase Utley was a real good prospect at the time also, but we were in need of OF prospects, and Utley's power wasn't on the same level as Borchards at the time. Also, scouts wondered if Utley could play 2B well enough to stay at the position, alot of scouts thought eventually he would end up in LF or at 3B or would end up as a Todd Walker type 2B with little D.

 

Basically, it was thought to be a great pick at the time and everyone gave us props for it. It wasn't questionable at the time like say Royce Ring's pick.

 

What's with the sig :puke

 

 

 

 

 

[Palehosefan]

I knew you would especially enjoy it :-), it was made just for you. It was actually made more in mind for football as odd as it sounds. I'm getting real excited about college football season.

[CubsSuck1]

This is exactly the reason why I feel that it is perfectly ok to trade prospects for major league talent.  No matter how thrilled the "scouts" are, they are right only 1 percent of the time.  The rest is all fluff.  Sox fans should know first hand how many of these cant miss prospects dont make it in the show.

 

Agree 100%

[Jake]

This is exactly the reason why I feel that it is perfectly ok to trade prospects for major league talent.  No matter how thrilled the "scouts" are, they are right only 1 percent of the time.  The rest is all fluff.  Sox fans should know first hand how many of these cant miss prospects dont make it in the show.

 

 

Of course, we say that and we'll trade a prospect and be ok with it and all of the sudden he's the best player in the majors.

[SHAFTR]

If Borchard could learn better Plate Discipline, he'd probably be a fine Dunn-like player. The problem is he doesn't, so he doesn't have a OBP that could make his batting average and strikeouts forgiveable.