Thursday, February 1, 2024

2024 Draft - Part 4 - Sins of the Father

Sins have, and should have, a very negative connotation.  So, just to level-set, in baseball terms I will be talking in this post about sins as defined by what I consider inexcusable, potentially job-costing mistakes.  Now, we all have made mistakes in our work lives.  I did. But never job-costing mistakes which explains, in part, why I worked for one company for the majority of my adult life.  

The expression the sins of the father being visited upon the son is what this post is about.  The worry I have is that the sins of previous drafts and years of FO squandering resources will be visited on decisions Cleveland makes regarding their 2024 draft picks.

Sins in baseball terms, to me, mean decisions that impact not only the present of a team but the future, too.  It is well-known that I am at odds with the Guardians' front office and, especially, their draft team.  Some of the mistakes they have made should have been baseball sins and, at least with the scouting director position, likely did cost some jobs. However, unfortunately, when these people leave, they leave their messes behind them.  

So, how does all this impact the 2024 draft?

The current Guardians' ML roster and farm system have the following issues:
  • Too many MIF prospects in the pipeline
  • No power hitting outfielders in the pipeline except those who have potentially career-threatening issues with contacting the baseball. This includes no real CF prospects other than slap hitters.
  • A ML roster without good outfielders, save Steven Kwan, of course.
  • Too many slap hitters in the pipeline
  • A gap between starting pitching on the ML roster and the next wave of pitching prospects
  • A lack of quality starting pitching prospects in the low minors which should, but currently doesn't, represent the second wave of starting pitchers who would be available by 2026.
  • No viable, top tier, catching prospects in the entire organization.
The Guardians have the #1 overall pick in this year's draft.  The normal goal in a draft should be, with all picks, to pick the best available, signable prospect, regardless of position.  This should be especially true when you have that top pick.  However, when your farm system and ML has a glaring weakness or two, the temptation would be to fill weaknesses as you can convince yourself, as a draft person, that there are LOTS of good players at the top of the draft that span almost the entire spectrum of player types and, likely, you can get one of those hole-filling guys at a lower price, savng money for later in the draft.

There are two truths about this draft, however, that make 2024 different from most drafts:
  • This is one of the weakest drafts, at the top in recent memory.  Three things about that:
    • This year's top two prospects, Nick Kurtz and JJ Wetherholt, would probably rank in the #5 to #9 range compared to the top prospects from the 2023 draft.  That is huge!  
    • There is a pretty big gap in surety of being good major leaguers between the top 3 prospects in this draft and the next 7.  In my opinion, there is a decent chance that picks 3-10 will be guys who, last year, might have been picked in the 15-20 range
    • Players know their own worth.  In a weak draft you will likely overpay for talent but still should be able to save money, especially at 1-1, no matter who you pick.
  • None of the available top 3 players plays a position of need for the Guardians
For the Guardians, these impressions create a problem.  Do the sins of previous Guardians draft minds and front office (through trades of prospects, lack of good FA signings) create a situation where the Guardians will use their first ever #1 pick on someone who is not close to the top talent in this weak draft just to fill a void in our pipeline?

Let's hope not.  I worry about it as I have been hearing about certain guys being in consideration for the #1 overall pick who shouldn't be.  One example is Vance Honeycutt.  

Honeycutt is the typical 5-tool teaser.  A guy who looks the part of being a top prospect. He fills out his uniform well, exudes athleticism and has produced in college, hitting 25 HR and stealing 29 bases as a freshman.  However, he strikes out a lot and, when he aims more for contact as he did last season, his production drops.  The comp I have heard for him is Drew Stubbs. 

The Guardians need to be really careful as there will be half-a-dozen guys like Honeycutt available at 1-1, many of who will have really good springs this year making them look more valuable than they have been projected to be based on the aggregate of their performance/scouting over the past 2-3 years.  

If you are thirsty, or hungry in the hot desert you can convince yourself that any mirage is an oasis or a diner. The key for the Guardians is to fight the urge to backfill a position, or more (counting picks in later rounds) with this draft.   They have already screwed up the last two drafts picking slap hitters, pitchability pitchers who got hurt.   They should not try to erase those failures by going for brass ring picks like Honeycutt.  

The chances they will end up with Drew Stubbs part deux are just too great to take when you have the #1 overall pick in the draft, even if it is in a weak draft class.  Take what you can get and then hope your development system can take the weak prospects from the last 2 drafts and turn them into the players the Guardians' draft gurus thought the organization could.

Doubling down on stupidity is not a great way to go and going for a brass ring pick at 1-1 this year just seems like a stupid and very, very risky approach for an organization that has had two really bad drafts in a row.

Let's not let the sins of the father cause the son to do something that is reckless and possibly even more damaging than what has happened in this organization recently.   Just draft the best guy available and hope the FO can find a way to turn our excess into talent to fill those holes they created.

Anything else is foolhardy...which makes me worry, given our recent drafts.

No comments:

Post a Comment