Sale's mechanics

[Balta1701]

His comments were in relation to middle relievers not closers. He said don't even get him started on closer. I disagree with that as well but it's a different discussion. I agree that a bullpen is more than a closer but he seems to think that good relievers are a "dime a dozen" but I just don't see them everywhere in baseball.

I'm reading this wrong?

Don't even get me started on closers. They're a dime a dozen.

It sure seems to me, even on a second reading, that he's saying Closers are a dime a dozen.

[Jordan4life_2007]

I still disagree. If relievers are a "dime a dozen" as you said, then all bullpens should be good. You make it sound like it'a easy to find good relievers. If it is then every team should have a good pen.

 

Give me your detailed post as to why good relievers are a dime a dozen but why not every team has a good bullpen.

 

No, I didn't. If you look back at that post I said closers were a dime a dozen. It's actually harder to find consistent middle relief/set-up guys then a guy to get the last three outs of a game. But that's what bullpens are or have evolved into. I don't ever remember bullpens being so inconsistent when I was just starting out as a baseball fan. Then again I was young so whatever. But the last 7 years or so have been ridiculous. Basically, if you're going to draft a reliever or a guy who projects to be a reliever in the first round, you're doing so to make him a closer. The Red Sox didn't draft Daniel Bard to make him a 6th/7th inning guy. It was to eventually supplant Papelbon. Who I think is gone after next year. You find other aspects of a bullpen through other avenues. Whether it be FA signings, which I despise, amateur FA signings or much later on in the draft or through trades. And this is obviously no easy task. Which is why despite having a competent, good or even great closer doesn't assure you of having a good to great bullpen.

[3E8]

Remember, this whole discussion started on a purely hypothetical situation that Sale turns into exactly Matt Thornton. Not more, not less. Thornton is an incredibly valuable reliever. In the past three years for MLB relievers, he trails only Mariano Rivera in WAR. Consistently good closers/relievers are not a dime a dozen. Otherwise they wouldn't be getting deals more than $10M on a year-by-year basis, or even multi-year deals eclipsing $40M. Why do so many relievers not live up to their contracts as Kalapse has pointed out before? Because the demand for them is so high, teams are forced to pay more than they are worth in order to obtain them.

 

Of course we all want Sale to become a starter eventually. Near 200 innings of a successful Sale is better than just 70 out of the pen. But say the White Sox, for whatever reason, choose to keep Sale in the pen and delivers each year like we saw in his short stint last season (that's pretty similar to Thornton). While under team control, he would obviously be helping us win games by being an elite reliever while also providing tens of millions of dollars in surplus value over that time period. And that surplus value helps us not have to chance spending money on the back end of the pen, but on other areas of the team which can be upgraded more efficiently through free agency. In this silly hypothetical situation, the result is good for the White Sox in every way, and the draft pick was a huge benefit/success. There is no debating this.

[ptatc]

No, I didn't. If you look back at that post I said closers were a dime a dozen. It's actually harder to find consistent middle relief/set-up guys then a guy to get the last three outs of a game. But that's what bullpens are or have evolved into. I don't ever remember bullpens being so inconsistent when I was just starting out as a baseball fan. Then again I was young so whatever. But the last 7 years or so have been ridiculous. Basically, if you're going to draft a reliever or a guy who projects to be a reliever in the first round, you're doing so to make him a closer. The Red Sox didn't draft Daniel Bard to make him a 6th/7th inning guy. It was to eventually supplant Papelbon. Who I think is gone after next year. You find other aspects of a bullpen through other avenues. Whether it be FA signings, which I despise, amateur FA signings or much later on in the draft or through trades. And this is obviously no easy task. Which is why despite having a competent, good or even great closer doesn't assure you of having a good to great bullpen.

 

Sorry, I misread. I still don't agree that closers are easy to find but that is something we've discussed before.

 

[witesoxfan]

Remember, this whole discussion started on a purely hypothetical situation that Sale turns into exactly Matt Thornton. Not more, not less. Thornton is an incredibly valuable reliever. In the past three years for MLB relievers, he trails only Mariano Rivera in WAR. Consistently good closers/relievers are not a dime a dozen. Otherwise they wouldn't be getting deals more than $10M on a year-by-year basis, or even multi-year deals eclipsing $40M. Why do so many relievers not live up to their contracts as Kalapse has pointed out before? Because the demand for them is so high, teams are forced to pay more than they are worth in order to obtain them.

 

Of course we all want Sale to become a starter eventually. Near 200 innings of a successful Sale is better than just 70 out of the pen. But say the White Sox, for whatever reason, choose to keep Sale in the pen and delivers each year like we saw in his short stint last season (that's pretty similar to Thornton). While under team control, he would obviously be helping us win games by being an elite reliever while also providing tens of millions of dollars in surplus value over that time period. And that surplus value helps us not have to chance spending money on the back end of the pen, but on other areas of the team which can be upgraded more efficiently through free agency. In this silly hypothetical situation, the result is good for the White Sox in every way, and the draft pick was a huge benefit/success. There is no debating this.

 

You have been distinctly on the money regarding this situation.

[Milkman delivers]

Not if he turns out to be a really, really good reliever or closer. Good relievers aren't as easy to come by as you're making it sound. They're actually quite the opposite.

 

3E8's post is not a "loser attitude", it's a realistic attitude. No team goes into the draft throwing darts because they're conceding that they're first pick will probably stink. But that doesn't mean they are unaware of the fact that it's probable the player won't pan out.

 

It could also be considered a "loser attitude" to force a guy to start in the minors when he adds a significant amount of value to the major league team as a reliever in a year where you're obviously going for it all.

[Milkman delivers]

I dunno about you guys, but I'd take a player that turns out to be "dominant" at any position on the field from my first round draft pick.

 

Yes, and it doesn't make sense to me to force a guy to do one thing because you think it offers more potential when it seems fairly obvious that he can succeed greatly in another position with much less of an injury risk.

Edited January 10, 2011 by Milkman delivers

[Jerksticks]

I just don't see why this needs to be addressed immediately in 2011. The only way for him to start is to take Peavy's place, and the longest that can be is through May, with many thinking Peav will return much sooner. People seem to think it's a bad idea to flip-flop him from starter to bullpen in the same season so why not just keep him in the pen this year? Let him start next year when we have rotation spots open. This year he needs to be scaring guys like Joe Mauer again in critical, late-inning situations.

[southsider2k5]

I just don't see why this needs to be addressed immediately in 2011. The only way for him to start is to take Peavy's place, and the longest that can be is through May, with many thinking Peav will return much sooner. People seem to think it's a bad idea to flip-flop him from starter to bullpen in the same season so why not just keep him in the pen this year? Let him start next year when we have rotation spots open. This year he needs to be scaring guys like Joe Mauer again in critical, late-inning situations.

 

I would rather have Chris starting in Charlotte than in our bullpen for 2011. Maybe that isn't "All in", but it is the smartest course of action for the franchise, IMO. The thing is, if he does fail as a starter, he can much more easily move back to the pen, versus the other way.

[Balta1701]

I just don't see why this needs to be addressed immediately in 2011. The only way for him to start is to take Peavy's place, and the longest that can be is through May, with many thinking Peav will return much sooner. People seem to think it's a bad idea to flip-flop him from starter to bullpen in the same season so why not just keep him in the pen this year? Let him start next year when we have rotation spots open. This year he needs to be scaring guys like Joe Mauer again in critical, late-inning situations.

Because if he spends this entire year in the pen and pitches 50-75 innings, there is zero reason to think his arm will be ready to handle 125 innings next year, let alone 200. That would be a serious strain on his arm.

 

If you want him in the pen this year and back in the rotation next year, then you need to plan for him to only pitch 1/2 of a season. If you get mmore than that you're sorta lucky, but you're also risking serious long term injury.

[ChiliIrishHammock24]

I would rather have Chris starting in Charlotte than in our bullpen for 2011. Maybe that isn't "All in", but it is the smartest course of action for the franchise, IMO. The thing is, if he does fail as a starter, he can much more easily move back to the pen, versus the other way.

 

Yep. Starters who fail turn into relievers. Relievers who are good never turn back into starters. So put him on a path that will, and pardon my song lyrics but "Shoot for the stars so if you fall you land on a cloud" Stars = rotation, cloud = bullpen.

[qwerty]

I would rather have Chris starting in Charlotte than in our bullpen for 2011. Maybe that isn't "All in", but it is the smartest course of action for the franchise, IMO. The thing is, if he does fail as a starter, he can much more easily move back to the pen, versus the other way.

 

Please, i would love to know how weakening our current team is the smartest course of action for the franchise. Sale will be able to overcome failure, if he does indeed end up failing in the pen this season. Trust me. Are you worried that he will not be stretched out enough to be a valuable asset in the rotation... unless he is ''stretching'' out all season in the minors? Is there some sort of belief that after starting his whole life he will suddenly forget how? Will he be brainwashed by the bullpen and never want to go back? Seriously, what is it? What type of statement would that make to sale, sending him down in favor of some scrub, when he is clearly more talented... and there is a role just waiting for him in the now. Seems to show a lack of confidence to me. Next year does not matter, nor do four down the road. Right now matters. The sox have already looked a couple years down the road... and this route is the best course of action.... for now... and then.

 

Sale has youth on our side.

 

Because if he spends this entire year in the pen and pitches 50-75 innings, there is zero reason to think his arm will be ready to handle 125 innings next year, let alone 200. That would be a serious strain on his arm.

 

If you want him in the pen this year and back in the rotation next year, then you need to plan for him to only pitch 1/2 of a season. If you get mmore than that you're sorta lucky, but you're also risking serious long term injury.

 

Zero reason? No reason to talk in absolutes. It has happened plenty of times... therefore negating the zero reason. I'm not even talking about a pitcher who pitched a certain amount of innings this year, and you want him to pitch a specific amount next season. I know what you preach, and i know it well. How about all the cases of pitchers missing a year(s) due to all sorts of injuries... tommy john will do since they have seemed to gotten extremely good at doing them. Pitchers will miss a year... and come back to throw 150...200. How on earth is such a thing possible? Seems to me like they would have to build a ton of endurance up, no?

 

Everyone responds to a particular workload differently... and mostly it matters how that individual and the team go about reaching their goal. Don't set goals that are unrealistic, don't rush things if they are going worse than planned, stick to initial plan.

 

Zero reason to believe someone could go from pen to starter? C.j. wilson says otherwise as recent as last season. He even threw over 200 innings, something which sale wouldn't be relied on to do. 55.9 inning average to 204 seems like a pretty drastic jump to me. Sale would be the 5th starter... looking to pull in roughly 150 innings. I could see if we were talking about a 33 year old suddenly looking to make the switch... but sale is young, very young. Things should be taken slowly with him... all around.

 

Yep. Starters who fail turn into relievers. Relievers who are good never turn back into starters. So put him on a path that will, and pardon my song lyrics but "Shoot for the stars so if you fall you land on a cloud" Stars = rotation, cloud = bullpen.

 

I can give you plenty of examples over the years... but since he was seemingly such a good story last year, c.j. wilson fits here again.

Edited January 10, 2011 by qwerty

[ChiliIrishHammock24]

I can give you plenty of examples over the years... but since he was seemingly such a good story last year, c.j. wilson fits here again.

 

I wouldn't really say that CJ Wilson was a good reliever. He was decent, and could have been a reliever for a while, but I wouldn't say he was good. K/9 was his only real good stat as a reliever outside of his 2007 and 2009 ERA.

 

I should not have said "never", but rarely does a good reliever change into a starter. Failed relievers try to, decent relievers who aren't that important to the bullpen try to, but ones who are vital to a team's pen I don't recall making the switch to start unless they were the long man/mop up man on the team.

[ChiliIrishHammock24]

but sale is young, very young. Things should be taken slowly with him... all around.

 

Exactly, thing should be taken slowly with him, and this is done by letting him stretch out in Peavy's spot and then AAA for a year and not rushing him into multiple roles. Sale in the bullpen makes our 2011 team better, but it also makes our 2012 team worse, a 2012 team that is losing a lefty starting pitcher. I'd rather insert Sale into the rotation next year taking Buehrle's spot with some confidence in him, not throwing him into the 2012 season taking Buehrle's spot and thinking "Gee, I hope he is able to make the switch back to starting and give us 180+ innings". We need a starter more in 2012 than we need another reliever in 2011.

[3E8]

Because if he spends this entire year in the pen and pitches 50-75 innings, there is zero reason to think his arm will be ready to handle 125 innings next year, let alone 200. That would be a serious strain on his arm.

CJ Wilson, Adam Wainwright, Fausto Carmona, Derek Lowe...

[southsider2k5]

CJ Wilson, Adam Wainwright, Fausto Carmona, Derek Lowe...

 

Wainwright, Carmona, and Lowe had all logged at least 160 IP in multiple seasons before their trips to the pen. Wilson is the one exception I have seen, but it remains to see how his 2011 goes. If he falls apart, the IP will be a very likely reason why.

[qwerty]

I wouldn't really say that CJ Wilson was a good reliever. He was decent, and could have been a reliever for a while, but I wouldn't say he was good. K/9 was his only real good stat as a reliever outside of his 2007 and 2009 ERA.

 

I should not have said "never", but rarely does a good reliever change into a starter. Failed relievers try to, decent relievers who aren't that important to the bullpen try to, but ones who are vital to a team's pen I don't recall making the switch to start unless they were the long man/mop up man on the team.

 

Wilson's rookie year was horrible... which tends to happen to rookies. I was not even considering his rookie season. You can if you like, i will choose not to. Wilson then went on to have two extremely good seasons, one better than average (good) and horrible one mixed in. I would say he had been good during that time span. He was better than decent, average, mediocre, etc to say the least.

 

Sure sale might be ''vital'' to the teams success this season in the pen. But there is a big picture to look, and the sox are not suddenly gonna get suckered into making him a reliever long term, if they have other plans to begin with, which i'm guessing they do.

 

Everyone is getting worked up over nothing in my opinion.

 

[3E8]

Wainwright, Carmona, and Lowe had all logged at least 160 IP in multiple seasons before their trips to the pen. Wilson is the one exception I have seen, but it remains to see how his 2011 goes. If he falls apart, the IP will be a very likely reason why.

Sale has thrown 280 innings the past two seasons in college/cape cod/pro ball.

[qwerty]

Exactly, thing should be taken slowly with him, and this is done by letting him stretch out in Peavy's spot and then AAA for a year and not rushing him into multiple roles. Sale in the bullpen makes our 2011 team better, but it also makes our 2012 team worse, a 2012 team that is losing a lefty starting pitcher. I'd rather insert Sale into the rotation next year taking Buehrle's spot with some confidence in him, not throwing him into the 2012 season taking Buehrle's spot and thinking "Gee, I hope he is able to make the switch back to starting and give us 180+ innings". We need a starter more in 2012 than we need another reliever in 2011.

 

I just can't fathom how it makes the sox worse in 2012. With the money they have freed up by buehrle and jackson becoming free agents they will sign a starter. Likely a pretty good one at that. One of buehrle/jackson could very well be back instead even. Either way, the sox will then have four starters... and sale's role will be limited to the 150ish range as the fourth or fifth starter. Benefit the sox this season and next? Or let him sit in the minors, not helping the sox, just so that he could potentially throw 50 more innings in 2012? It just doesn't make sense to me.

Edited January 10, 2011 by qwerty

[ChiliIrishHammock24]

I just can't fathom how it makes the sox worse in 2012. With the money they have freed up by buehrle and jackson becoming free agents they will sign a starter. Likely a pretty good one at that. One of buehrle/jackson could very well be back instead even. Either way, the sox will then have four starters... and sale's role will be limited to the 150ish range as the fourth or fifth starter. Benefit the sox this season and next? Or let him sit in the minors, not helping the sox, just so that he could potentially throw 50 more innings in 2012? It just doesn't make sense to me.

 

I am just suprised you think he can go from Starter to reliever to starter, and succeed and improve at each step, while setting himself up for a starting job immediately upon return to rotation. I think he will have a MUCH better 2012 season in the rotation if the previous year as a starter learning how to control his pace, velocity, endurance, and build his stamina than he would going into the 2012 as a starter if the previous year he spent sitting in the bullpen throwing pitching 3-4 innings a week in stressful situations where he is throwing as hard as he can and not building up any sort of stamina and endurance. The chances he succeeds in 2012 as a starter are much higher, in my opinion, if he spends his 2011 working on that role.

[ChiliIrishHammock24]

Wilson's rookie year was horrible... which tends to happen to rookies. I was not even considering his rookie season. You can if you like, i will choose not to. Wilson then went on to have two extremely good seasons, one better than average (good) and horrible one mixed in. I would say he had been good during that time span. He was better than decent, average, mediocre, etc to say the least.

 

Sure sale might be ''vital'' to the teams success this season in the pen. But there is a big picture to look, and the sox are not suddenly gonna get suckered into making him a reliever long term, if they have other plans to begin with, which i'm guessing they do.

 

Everyone is getting worked up over nothing in my opinion.

 

2 extremely good seasons?

 

2009, I would say was easily his best season as a reliever. Extremely good? Ehh, I'll accept that. His 2007 would be his 2nd best season, and I really don't think it was all that memorable. I would say it was a good year, but nothing I would consider "extremely good". 4.35 BB/9, 1.91 K/BB. His opponent AVG was really good, his WHIP was pretty good, and his k/9 was pretty good, but overall I would say it was nothing more than just a good year. His 2006 was pretty much average, and his 2008 was certainly below average.

 

He put up a 2.8 WAR over 4 seasons in the bullpen. That's essentially 0.7 WAR per season. Bobby Jenks put up a WAR of double that last season, and a lot of people couldn't stand him.

 

Again, I think CJ was a pretty decent reliever over his career, but him moving to the rotation did not create a big hole in their pen, even though he was coming off his best season in relief.

[chw42]

2 extremely good seasons?

 

2009, I would say was easily his best season as a reliever. Extremely good? Ehh, I'll accept that. His 2007 would be his 2nd best season, and I really don't think it was all that memorable. I would say it was a good year, but nothing I would consider "extremely good". 4.35 BB/9, 1.91 K/BB. His opponent AVG was really good, his WHIP was pretty good, and his k/9 was pretty good, but overall I would say it was nothing more than just a good year. His 2006 was pretty much average, and his 2008 was certainly below average.

 

He put up a 2.8 WAR over 4 seasons in the bullpen. That's essentially 0.7 WAR per season. Bobby Jenks put up a WAR of double that last season, and a lot of people couldn't stand him.

 

Again, I think CJ was a pretty decent reliever over his career, but him moving to the rotation did not create a big hole in their pen, even though he was coming off his best season in relief.

 

Wilson was a 2 WAR reliever the year before the Rangers put him into the rotation.

 

They did that because they could. They had the arms in the pen and their rotation was lacking a left handed starter.

[qwerty]

I am just suprised you think he can go from Starter to reliever to starter, and succeed and improve at each step, while setting himself up for a starting job immediately upon return to rotation. I think he will have a MUCH better 2012 season in the rotation if the previous year as a starter learning how to control his pace, velocity, endurance, and build his stamina than he would going into the 2012 as a starter if the previous year he spent sitting in the bullpen throwing pitching 3-4 innings a week in stressful situations where he is throwing as hard as he can and not building up any sort of stamina and endurance. The chances he succeeds in 2012 as a starter are much higher, in my opinion, if he spends his 2011 working on that role.

 

The sox need him now and next season. It's really that simple. Hopefully someone will be able to grasp that. They need sale in whatever role suits them best to win. Pacing? Learning the proper velocities to sit at? Both come with the role the pitcher is in... and come rather easily if the player is talented... hell they don't even have to be all that talented is they are willing to listen and follow orders. Stressful situations? You mean like coming in with runners on second and third with no one out in a tie game? Yes, nothing of value can be taken away from something like that. That is another story entirely though.

 

The sox will not be looking for cy young caliber numbers out of sale is 2012. They will be looking for back of the rotation type numbers, and anything else is a bonus.

 

2 extremely good seasons?

 

2009, I would say was easily his best season as a reliever. Extremely good? Ehh, I'll accept that. His 2007 would be his 2nd best season, and I really don't think it was all that memorable. I would say it was a good year, but nothing I would consider "extremely good". 4.35 BB/9, 1.91 K/BB. His opponent AVG was really good, his WHIP was pretty good, and his k/9 was pretty good, but overall I would say it was nothing more than just a good year. His 2006 was pretty much average, and his 2008 was certainly below average.

 

He put up a 2.8 WAR over 4 seasons in the bullpen. That's essentially 0.7 WAR per season. Bobby Jenks put up a WAR of double that last season, and a lot of people couldn't stand him.

 

Again, I think CJ was a pretty decent reliever over his career, but him moving to the rotation did not create a big hole in their pen, even though he was coming off his best season in relief.

 

Great is better than good. Great is better than extremely good. I think my term summed up his season (s) pretty well. I did not claim greatness. WAR is rarely a good tool to use when it comes to relievers unless they are full blown set-up men/closer. Even then, the best of pitchers out of the pen can only post a WAR so high. Wilson only totaled 50 saves in a three year time span... hardly would i consider those closer type numbers. Nearly half of those came in one season alone. Wilson was not a full time closer during his entire tenure in the pen... nor was he close to it. WAR has a hard time distinguishing true value of bullpen pitchers. There is a reason why you almost never see someone reference a relievers WAR.

 

Btw, wilson has a career 4.10 bb/9 and a 1.95 k/bb... pretty darn similar to those 2007 numbers...

Wilson walks a bunch of batters, and most likely always will, if he works around that to be a better than league average pitcher, a good pitcher i would say, well i don't see how he can get faulted for it.

 

[ChiliIrishHammock24]

The sox need him now and next season. It's really that simple. Hopefully someone will be able to grasp that. They need sale in whatever role suits them best to win. Pacing? Learning the proper velocities to sit at? Both come with the role the pitcher is in... and come rather easily if the player is talented... hell they don't even have to be all that talented is they are willing to listen and follow orders. Stressful situations? You mean like coming in with runners on second and third with no one out in a tie game? Yes, nothing of value can be taken away from something like that. That is another story entirely though.

 

The sox will not be looking for cy young caliber numbers out of sale is 2012. They will be looking for back of the rotation type numbers, and anything else is a bonus.

 

 

 

Great is better than good. Great is better than extremely good. I think my term summed up his season (s) pretty well. I did not claim greatness. WAR is rarely a good tool to use when it comes to relievers unless they are full blown set-up men/closer. Even then, the best of pitchers out of the pen can only post a WAR so high. Wilson only totaled 50 saves in a three year time span... hardly would i consider those closer type numbers. Nearly half of those came in one season alone. Wilson was not a full time closer during his entire tenure in the pen... nor was he close to it. WAR has a hard time distinguishing true value of bullpen pitchers. There is a reason why you almost never see someone reference a relievers WAR.

 

Btw, wilson has a career 4.10 bb/9 and a 1.95 k/bb... pretty darn similar to those 2007 numbers...

Wilson walks a bunch of batters, and most likely always will, if he works around that to be a better than league average pitcher, a good pitcher i would say, well i don't see how he can get faulted for it.

 

 

 

Stupid argument is stupid.

[ptatc]

Well good god damn. Sale has the ability to be an elite closer because KHP says so. Chris Sale is a very special pitcher? Wow. I'm totally stumped. How do I respond to that? Nobody compared Chris Sale to Aaron Poreda. So you can take that bulls*** somewhere else. I've explained myself over and over again regarding this topic. And I don't give a f*** who agrees or disagrees. YOU DO NOT DRAFT A RELIEVER WITH THE 13TH PICK! If you remember, and I'm sure you don't, I created a thread last year begging KW NOT to trade Chris Sale because I liked him so much. But not because I wanted a set-up man or closer. Because I wanted a number 1 or 2 type starter. Is that too much to ask? I don't know and I don't care. In sports, and life in general, you shoot for the stars. Not settle for scraps.

 

 

 

And for the 548767843278458432 time. I don't have a problem with the pick IF he's going to be a starter. But like I said before, there were questions about his frame, durability and delivery BEFORE the draft. Now if the Sox scouts or Lauman or whatever drafted him with the idea of will try him as a starter but if worse comes to worse will make him a reliever then they f***ED UP. You can agree or disagree. I really don't care.

 

 

 

You're delusional and have somehow created an imaginary J4L that you just feel like arguing with. I'm not doing this anymore. FOR THE LAST f***ING TIME! If Sale ultimately ends up as a reliever then it was a WASTE of a 13th pick. A third or fourth round pick? No problem. Maybe even a second round pick. I don't give a f*** if you agree with me. I'll play the role of Soxtalk villain. I really don't care. I will speak my mind no matter what the consensus is.

 

I think that if you get a good major league player at any position it is a good (not wasted) pick. I wnet back and looked at all of the 10-15 picks in the MLB drafts from 1997-2004. I didn't go anumore recent because the players still have a chance to develop. Here are the picks:

 

1997

Jon Garland

Chris Enochs

Aaron Akin

Kyle peterson

Brandon Larson

Jason Dellaero

 

Garland was the only good MLB player

 

1998

Carlos Pena

Josh McKinley

Adam Everett

JM Gold

Jeff Weaver

Clint Johnson

 

Pena,Everett,Weaver the only good MLB

 

1999

Ben Sheets

Ryan Christianson

Brett Myers

Mike Paradis

Ty Howington

Jason Stumm

 

Sheets, Myers

 

2000

Joe Torres

Dave Krynzel

Joe Borchard

Shaun Boyd

Beau Hale

Chase Utley

 

Utley

 

2001

Chris Burke

Kenny Baugh

Mike Jones

Casey Kotchman

Jake Gautreau

Gabe Gross

 

Burke, maybe Kotchman and Gross

 

2002

Drew Myers

Jeremy Hermedia

Joe Saunders

Khalil Greene

Russ Adams

Scott Kazmir

 

Good draft all bit Myers

 

2003

Ian Stewart

Micheal aubrey

Lastings Milledge

Aaron Hill

Ryan Wagner

Brian Anderson

 

Stewart, Hill, Wagner

 

2004

Thomas diamond

Neil Walker

Jered Weaver

Bill Bray

Billy Butler

Stephen Drew

 

Walker,Weaver, mayber Butler and Drew

 

 

It looks to me like from picks 10-15 teams are lucky to get good contributing players. I'll take Sale being good whther it's in the pen or starting. If he's good it will not be a wasted pick.