Since the Jon Daniels-run Rangers are now one of the "model" MLB franchises, I think we look to emulate some of the moves they've executed to get to where they are today. In particular, a trade a couple of years ago where they took a "toolsy," everyday player over a prized, young arm. Not saying they don't make bad moves from time to time, but the prevailing thought in making that trade was getting a player that impacts your team 5 out of 5 days was valued more than a starting pitcher who did so 1 out of 5 days. Haven't looked into Luhnow's record with the Cards on how they valued pitching over position players. I know Bobby Heck had an infatuation with shoring up the middle of the infield: Jason Castro, Jio Mier, DD Jr., and George Springer in his first 4 1st round picks with the 'stros.
Luhnow's first major moving was shipping out our closer for a starting SS. seems to be right in line with your thinking
40 Round Mock Draft Well, it's probably a mock in name only. Doesn't really fit the bill of what we expect from a mock draft.
http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=7988727&categoryid=2521705 apparantly appel will only sign with us if we wore the rainbow jerseys. lol just kidding
Regarding undrafted free agents.. <blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p>FA, subject to $100k limit like 11th-40th rders. @<a href="https://twitter.com/cutchisthetruth">cutchisthetruth</a>: If a player goes undrafted, doesn't he become a free agent? <a href="https://twitter.com/search/%2523mlbdraft">#mlbdraft</a></p>— Jim Callis (@jimcallisBA) <a href="https://twitter.com/jimcallisBA/status/208312387462373377" data-datetime="2012-05-31T21:41:58+00:00">May 31, 2012</a></blockquote> <script src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
As a draft prospect, how does Appel compare to Gerrit Cole when he was drafted #1 last year? I would imagine that Pittsburgh selected Cole #1 for the same reasons analysts are expecting Luhnow to take Appel; polished college arm who is expected to move quickly through the system. In hindsight, though, it appears that Cole may not have been the best pticher from his team(UCLA) selected, let alone the best pitcher(Bundy). This would seemingly be the case with Appel, as well, seeing how he hasn't really separated himself from the college arm pack.
From what I've read, Appel would have slotted in the top of the 2nd-tier college arms last year. Most likely still a top 10 pick but clearly a step below Cole. Both have outstanding stuff, the difference is Cole dominated at times while Appel has just been steadily very good. If I'm drafting a college player without much projection first overall, he'd better be dominating the college scene. E.g. Strasburg, David Price.
Without having seen any of them I tend to lean more toward taking a potential all-star caliber everyday player (Buxton) over a pitcher, even though Appel seems to be much safer. You really need to be solid to great at 6-7 spots in the lineup to contend, whereas you probably only need 2 really good SPs and 1 or 2 more that are above average to have a good rotation. We had Roy, Roger, Andy and then guys like Pete Munro and a young, unproven Wandy. Draft the bats if you can and then make deals for proven pitching when the time comes would be my philosophy I think.
I agree. I would be happy to swing for the fences wiht Buxton or Correa at #1, and take a safer pick at #41.
Totally agree. Especially in the (barf) AL. If you want to compete, your lineup has to go minimum 7 deep, if not 8. Go with the guy that contributes (and hopefully leads) every day.
I'm digging the idea of Correa. He seems to be a little bit further along developmentally than Buxton but still has lots of upside. He plays a premier position (SS) but could move to 3B, if necessary, which is a place where we have no legit prospects. I just look at the #1 draft slot being a once in a decade or so opportunity to get a superstar, and Appel seems to have "very likely to be good but not special" written on him. I fear Buxton busting due to his lack of competetition and track record. Either way, I'm gonna trust Luhnow.
Nobody, not even the Rangers, just focus entirely on one thing over the other. To choose a hitter over a pitcher just because he's a hitter is stupid, something that I'm sure our front office will not do. If Appel is graded to be better than Buxton, for example, you still take Appel. In this case, Appel has the huge benefit of being more projectable as he's a college player. I would have absolutely no qualms about picking him if there are too many question marks with Buxton. The whole "everyday" vs "1 out of 5 days" is pure BS that I have no clue why people say it all the time. A starting pitcher will pitch for ~7 out of 9 innings once every 5 days(once every 4 day during playoffs). A hitter hits slightly more than 1 out of 9 times in the lineup while playing maybe 150 games. Sure, a hitter is likely still more important if he plays great defense at a premium position, and hitters are less likely to break down. But overall it's more a slight edge than anything else. Just look at how much FA pitchers are getting paid to see their market value relative to hitters.
I would be completely fine with drafting Correa as a 3B, with the outside chance he can stick at SS. The Astros have a serious lack of 3B prospects.
Probably threw a ton of pitches too. That's the main reason why I'd pass on him... his arm may just be as good as he ever will be RIGHT NOW, and the Astros won't sniff any of it for at least another year, plus. If they already had the toolsy possible future superstar in the system, then you can probably take the risk on the college pitcher who is throwing 100 + pitches every start.
