Seeing as we are set to draft 24th this year, and that is super high compared to where we are used to!, I wanted to look back and see what kinds of successes have been found (or not found) with this pick in the past!

..From MLB's Draft History Page--

2012

Marrero, Deven

SS

06/20/2012

Arizona State

2011

Guerrieri, Taylor

RHP

Tampa Bay Rays

08/15/2011

Spring Valley (SC) HS

2010

Brown, Gary

CF

San Francisco Giants

08/16/2010

Cal State - Fullerton

2009 Grichuk, Randal

LF

Los Angeles Angels

06/20/2009

Lamar Consolidated HS

2008

Hewitt, Anthony

SS

Philadelphia Phillies

-

Salisbury School

2007

Main, Michael

SP

Texas Rangers

-

Deland (FL) HS

2006

Johnson, Cody

OF

Atlanta Braves

-

A Crawford Mosley HS (FL)

2005

Bogusevic, Brian

P

Houston Astros

-

Tulane U 2005 24 Bogusevic, Brian P Houston Astros - Tulane U .227 11 46 20 0 0 0 18.00 0

2004

Powell, Landon

C

Oakland Athletics

-

U South Carolina (SC)

.207

10

45

1

2003

Billingsley, Chad

P

Los Angeles Dodgers

-

Defiance Sr HS (OH)

.142

2

20

0

80

61

0

3.66

1031

2002

Blanton, Joe

P

Oakland Athletics

-

University of Kentucky

.107

0

6

0

83

75

0

4.37

978

2001

McBride, Macay

P

Atlanta Braves

-

Screven County HS (Sylvania, GA)

0

0

0

6

2

2

4.35

98

2000

Williams, Blake

P

St. Louis Cardinals

-

Southwest Texas State University

1999

Ainsworth, Kurt

P

San Francisco Giants

-

Louisiana State University

.071

0

0

0

6

8

0

5.19

90

          ^^^^BLAST FROM THE PAST!^^^^ Lol

1998

Brown, Andy

OF

New York Yankees

-

Richmond HS (Richmond, IN)

1997

Godwin, Tyrell

OF

New York Yankees

-

East Bladen HS (Elizabethtown, NC)

Stats to the right are MLB Career Stats,AVG, HR, RBI, SB, W, L, SV, ERA, and SO.
Those without, have none. I hope we can harken back to the 02-03 picks from about ten years ago! I would like a pick like those or better!

That list is exactly why I don't get the reluctance to move that pick.  Seems to me that once you get out of about the top 10 its pretty much a crap shoot.  Especially in baseball where HS kids are drafted (which I really dislike).  As an example the 24th pick in 2007 played short season A ball this year. 5 years out of HS and still in short season ball. Sure there are super kids that come out as HS picks but I would way rather have a kid who played college ball.  But that isn't really my point. Back to the original point. How many 24th picks on this list have you guys even ever heard of let alone turned out to be quality MLB players? I can honestly say I know who 4 of these guys are.

Trout, Cole, porcello, bard, rasmus/garza, DeWitt, billingsley, Cain, wainwright were all guys available in the 24-29 range. I'd venture to say we'd all be happy with anyone on that list at #24.

dabuscuits wrote: Trout, Cole, porcello, bard, rasmus/garza, DeWitt, billingsley, Cain, wainwright were all guys available in the 24-29 range. I'd venture to say we'd all be happy with anyone on that list at #24.

Certainly. But you miss the point. How many guys on the 24 list in the OP have you even ever heard of?  It just seems like a big drop after the top 10 or so and after that not sure how much better 24 is over say 60?

You missed my point which is there is certainly talent available in the 24-29 range. Every year there is someone in that range to be had.

Buscuits, I think he recognized ur point, but just thinks that the talent available 24-29 is the same as 50-60

If that's the case I disagree with that line of thinking then as a whole.

Haha there we go, as long as we are arguing the right point ;-) but I'll let him speak up to see if I read that right anyways..

ifsteve wrote:

dabuscuits wrote: Trout, Cole, porcello, bard, rasmus/garza, DeWitt, billingsley, Cain, wainwright were all guys available in the 24-29 range. I'd venture to say we'd all be happy with anyone on that list at #24.

Certainly. But you miss the point. How many guys on the 24 list in the OP have you even ever heard of?  It just seems like a big drop after the top 10 or so and after that not sure how much better 24 is over say 60?

Logic says the farther down the draft the thinner amount of true talent is available. Sure there will always be the Mike Piazza, a 12 time All Star that was drafted in the 62^nd round, but I think the list gets less that farther down you go. Which I guess proves you can come up with a gem no matter how far down you go BUT the odd have to get slimmer with each round.

Of course there are many first rounder that don’t make too. Some just end up in the starting line up of your state prison.

heard an interesting take the other day in buffalo (where the Bills just may be the most frustrating NFL team ever assembled...or dis-assembled):
Pro sports continue to reward big winners and big losers. It is death to be in the middle. It doesn't pay to be mediocre because you rarely get better. having said that, they feel that the draft should be reversed (an interesting thought) and that the higher you finish, the better pick you get. the reason being there should NEVER EVER be a reason in pro sports to not want to win--just to get a higher draft pick. But thats what takes place every year. Winning should always trump anything else...and losing should never be rewarded..or not trying hard enough to win in order to get a higher pick. It screws the fans who pay big bucks for tickets (even if a high pick might make that team better the following year(s)...the Colts are exhibit A.

However there is something inherently wrong with a system that might actually reward losing more or less intentionally. And thats why being in the middle really stinks. You get the worst of it all.

the Blue Jays have not gone to postseason since they won back to back world series. Since then (nearly 20 years) they have been a poster child of mediocrity...winning their 70 to 80 games a year and accomplishing nothing. Finally this year, owership decided to go for broke and break the cycle. They have aggressively gone after the big fish they feel will turn medoicrity into winning and they may have succeeded. We'll find out.

Anyway, I kind of like the idea of not rewarding losing. I get why its done that way..but as we have seen, it is also kind of counterproductive once a team knows it isn't going anywhere. any thoughts on this?

camdenbird wrote: Buscuits, I think he recognized ur point, but just thinks that the talent available 24-29 is the same as 50-60

Ding ding ding. We have a winner. Certainly IN GENERAL the lower down you go in the draft the more of a crapshoot it becomes. There are always nuggets to be found. I just don't see 24 as such an awesome pick as to be too worried about giving it up compared to our next pick.  The team as currently built is poised to make some playoff runs. I prefer to get better now. A 24th pick could easily be 5 years away?

I agree with you Steve if its for the right player. I'm not giving up a pick and big money for Adam freakin laroche.

So we also have the 33rd pick. So losing 24 is certainly no big deal. We can debate all day if LaRoche is the right guy but the 24th pick is not a big deal.

Personally after looking at LaRoches career numbers I would definitely go after him. Hits at a .270 clip and averages about 25 dingers, and plays good defense. That is a huge upswing to me over Davis at first.

I'm sorry but I just can't see giving up a draft pick the 1.7 million slot for the pick and signing to decent sized contract for a guy that turns 34 next year. Maybe I'm in the minority here but he had a career year in his walk year, faces a whole new league for the first time in his career. He's definitely on the downside of his career or going to be over the three years. Again I'm not saying the 24th pick is the be all end all as this draft is pretty bad but for the right player I'd do it.

ifsteve wrote: So we also have the 33rd pick. So losing 24 is certainly no big deal. We can debate all day if LaRoche is the right guy but the 24th pick is not a big deal.

Personally after looking at LaRoches career numbers I would definitely go after him. Hits at a .270 clip and averages about 25 dingers, and plays good defense. That is a huge upswing to me over Davis at first.

Davis hit .270 last year with over 30 dingers.. Now certainly if you put him at DH which would obviously happen and LaRoche at first you might have something, so I could definitely see that point. I think I'm just kind of apathetic about it at this point. I don't mind either way.

But as for the logic that we can afford the 24th pick b/c we have the 33rd. I would be completely against that. I mean we've all acknowledged for the most part, the MLB draft, after the first 5 picks especially, is a complete crapshoot. So the more picks you have, especially around the same area, the better the chances you have of hitting on your pick.

Camden

I agree with the logic of the more picks you get the better chance of hitting a home run. And I wouldn't use the 24th pick or the 33rd pick to just get somebody. But I believe we might be able to use that pick to package it to a player who could make the team better next year when we are on to something.  Hell the #1 pick most often is several years away from being a MLB everyday player.  The 24/33 pick are in now way going to help this team now and I believe we need help now.