Q and A: - Mets vs. Red Sox Draft

"Bronxlaw" wrote:

Mack:



This is my first time responding to any internet article, let alone one in your column, and as a recent convert to your site I find most of what you write as well thought out, and informative. But your answer to anonymous’ question posted today are either entirely misleading or just plain off base, and here’s why.



1. The Mets picked Nimmo 13th, and would not have picked again until 44th. The Red Sox first four picks were all done between 19 and 40, so effectively the Mets could have taken one of the quad of Sox picks (Barnes, Swihart, Owens and Bradley) or Nimmo. They did not bypass each of them for their first 4 selections. Perhaps it was not your intention to do so, but in effect your response makes it appear as though they bypassed each one before making their picks. Not so.



2. It’s clear that the Mets liked Nimmo a lot, (for better or worse) and certainly liked him better than those aforementioned Red Sox draftees. As a consequence they had to take him 13th or not at all. I saw what must have been 30 mock drafts (along with their 3.0 versions) and I don’t recall many having Nimmo outside of 40. My recollection is that in a good amount of the mocks, Nimmo was projected to be going to the Sox with the Swihart pick at 26. Regrettably, unlike the other major sports drafts, you can’t try to buy or trade for another pick. Its either one or the other, Nimmo and a lesser power arm at 44, or a power arm at 13 and a lesser bat at 44. I think that the Mets did exactly what MoneyBall preaches, that you obtain the premium value where the market undervalues, and then you pick later on into the strength of the draft with volume (college arms).



3. I don’t know very much about the scouting portion of the individual player’s value, because I do not see the draftees with my own eyes, but that’s why scouting is an imperfect science…it is beauty, or in this case, skill in the eye of the beholder. The Jim Callis’ of the world are wrong much more often than they are right, what they have become are compilers and consensus builders and nothing more. Do not forget that sometimes the scouts he speaks to have agendas, and push the things he or she wants to see. Quite succinctly, he cannot be an MLB “Mel Kiper” drone because he simply does not have the ability to see every draft eligible player in light of the fact that the player pool of MLB prospects is exponentially greater than the NFL College pool that Kiper views and familiarizes himself with, nor is there a true scouting combine to see the workout warriors of the draft. The MLB draft is truly a less projectable science.

I believe that as a long suffering fan of the Metropolitans, for the first time since the Cashmen days, we have turned a corner and I sincerely feel like the front office is in good hands. I guess we can agree to disagree.
 
Peter:
 
Thank you for your well thought out response.
 
I guess I was a little misleading and should have clarified the Red Sox' first round picks. My bad.
 
I was just trying to point out that the Red Sox used their first two round picks for the well known, well publicized blue chippers that everyone writes about.
 
As I mentioned before, I only am critical of not picking one of the established "top7" junior college starters that everyone else seems to feel were worth picking with their early first round pick.
 
My mock draft consolidation became very flawed this year. I compiled 234 of them but only 14 (from a total of 5 separate writers) were for mock drafts above 100 players. All the rest were either the top 33 or the top 50. There simply wasn't enough predicting in the 101-300 range, where most of the round 3-10 players will go.
 
High School players continue to be under-written about. Even the big guys, like Keith Law, only mock the first round. All your in-depth scouting reports are locked behind sub-sites and I simply can't afford to pay for all of them.
 
Everyone that has written to me feels the Mets went in the right direction. I truly hope you are all right.