Welcome To Seattle, Kyle

Dave · June 9, 2009 at 7:35 pm · Filed Under Mariners 

The M’s final selection of the day is Kyle Seager, a left-handed hitting 3B/2B from North Carolina. Ackley’s teammate, Seager is another pick that I’m going to like more than most. His lack of power will be cited by people too stuck on traditional roles, but he’s a nice all-around player – good approach at the plate, line drive swing, and quality defense at third with a chance to move to second. Definitely a guy who gets more production out of his ability than his raw tools would indicate.

There’s a clear theme with the M’s picks today – they’re all strong fundamental position players with an understanding of the strike zone. Of the five, Poythress is the only one with a plus power tool, as the M’s continue to value all around players over sluggers. Its the right strategy, I think.

Overall, I’m pleased with day one. I know a lot of you will be upset that the M’s passed on the big name pitchers, but this is one of those situations where the team had significantly more knowledge about the players than we did. They got the #2 pick right, and I like the group they took at #27/#33/#51/#82. I’ll call it a successful first day.

Comments

26 Responses to “Welcome To Seattle, Kyle”

  1. rjfrik on June 9th, 2009 7:43 pm

    Sorry Dave, I have to disagree. I think they picked pretty poorly except the 1st pick and the last pick. The middle picks were, IMO, not good. I guess we will see

  2. TheMsfan on June 9th, 2009 7:45 pm

    Dave, i know its very early, but assuming that Seager CANT play 2b and has to play 3rd, is he a prospect? or is he matt mangini

  3. manifestus on June 9th, 2009 7:46 pm

    I liked the picks except for #33, but that was more or less expected. Overall it seemed like a pretty nice draft (but what do I know?).

  4. cdowley on June 9th, 2009 7:46 pm

    I’m so very happy with this pick. I saw some video of him while researching Ackley, and I thought he’d be an interesting guy for the team to look at. Plus defender, very patient approach at the plate, uses his eyes and head well in all aspects of the game. Another pure ballplayer, much like Ackley and Franklin.

    Another common theme? Except maybe Barron, we could see these picks contributing in some way by 2011.

    Very satisfied with Day 1. I imagine Z and company will be looking at largely pitching tomorrow given the (almost startling) lack of any selected today. Some interesting names still to be had there, to be sure.

  5. Slurve on June 9th, 2009 7:47 pm

    He’d be Matt Mangini if he can’t play second.

  6. msb on June 9th, 2009 7:47 pm

    they’re all strong fundamental position players with an understanding of the strike zone

    what a novel concept.

  7. xxtinynickxx on June 9th, 2009 7:50 pm

    Im so stoked about this draft. I have to say Dr. Z is going to be happy. I can not wait to see some of these guys playing winterball or spring training! The best thing about baseball draft is if you have a bust a lot of times there is always someone else picked later to pick up some of the slack.

  8. Steve Nelson on June 9th, 2009 7:50 pm

    Sorry Dave, I have to disagree. I think they picked pretty poorly except the 1st pick and the last pick. The middle picks were, IMO, not good. I guess we will see

    I’m sorry, but that is a silly comment. I will aceept commentary from Dave, because Dave has established a good track record of being reasonably knowledgeable about drafting and player development.

    But really – your assessment that the team picked poorly has about as much credibility as my evaluation of the relative airworthiness of the Boeing 787 Dreamliner.

    If you would like to back up your assessment with credible evaluation that isn’t simply cribbed from what other analysts have commented elsewhere, we would love to hear it. The USSM community thrives on good, accurate coherent information and evaluation.

    But lacking that … well if asked to choose whether I think Dave’s or your opinion is more credible, it’s really not much of an issue unless you can provide a just a bit more reason why we should believe you instead of Dave.

  9. Slurve on June 9th, 2009 7:52 pm

    Well the only thing we can do know is sit down watch and see how these players do and complain if/when Scheppers/Paxton go and beast the competition.

    The pick I hated the most was the Baron one especially with Paxton/Scheppers still on the board.

    Well it was a weird draft for all the teams except for Texas and Colorado. Here’s hoping they all our draftees pan out!

  10. bilbo27 on June 9th, 2009 7:57 pm

    I couldn’t agree more. You put together a team with 1-9 being solid all around players and you have the makings of a good team.

    Also consider the M’s aren’t shy on spending money and getting pitchers to come to Seattle is drastically easier than getting hitters to come here. So if the M’s can build their starting position slots with solid fundamental guys all around who can do a little of everything, they can then put together a solid bullpen and back of the rotation from their minor league system and if they want/need to can go and sign the front end of the rotation.

    And in the end, who knows what we’ll get for Wash/Bedard/Beltre? For all we know the M’s will be able to get the front of the rotation prospects they currently lack. Typically you can’t have a minor league system that has everything and stays consistently stocked. The M’s are currently weakest in position players and can sign top free agent pitchers easier than top position players, so i’m not at all disappointed with how this draft has gone.

  11. SonOfZavaras on June 9th, 2009 8:16 pm

    And in the end, who knows what we’ll get for Wash/Bedard/Beltre? For all we know the M’s will be able to get the front of the rotation prospects they currently lack.

    With all due respect, bilbo….teams aren’t gonna give up those FOTR-prospects for rentals.

    Unless Jack’s got some serious Jedi skills in trade negotiation, I am not yet sharing the optimism Dave espouses in this draft.

    My main concern with Seager isn’t his bat- he seems pretty adept at that, and is a lefty…yay, good. But I don’t know if his glove plays at second OR third.

  12. philosofool on June 9th, 2009 9:04 pm

    Sorry Dave, I have to disagree. I think they picked pretty poorly except the 1st pick and the last pick. The middle picks were, IMO, not good. I guess we will see

    Comments like these should be backed up with explanations of whom you would have taken instead, or at least which superior players were on the board. Just to disagree shows us nothing. Don’t forget that the M’s are looking at about a $7M commitment to Ackley and don’t have infinite resources for more signings, so talking about Tanner Sheppers, who if he heals well will demand big money, is kinda pointless.

  13. bilbo27 on June 9th, 2009 9:11 pm

    “teams aren’t gonna give up those FOTR-prospects for rentals.”

    They do if the pitchers are a long ways off from the Major Leagues, at least in the past teams have done so frequently. There is a lot of debate this year obviously on whether teams will be willing to give much of anything up for rent-a-players. But that assumes all GM’s / front offices know what they are doing. We know first hand this definitley isn’t always the case. And we now have someone captaining the ship who seems to know how to find a lot of talent where others don’t see much.

  14. Sidi on June 9th, 2009 9:18 pm

    Also, we don’t really need to grab the “ace of the future.” We sort of have that, with a guy who probably still hasn’t even decided on a favorite beer.

  15. tmac9311 on June 9th, 2009 9:28 pm

    i know nothing about any of the players we took, but i loved that the theme was LH/SH/RH/RH/LH and CF/SS/C/1B/2B. Z knows what this team needs, yes the guys aren’t overwhelming excitement, but the days on having a 6 free swinging can’t hit a righty or take a pitch seem to be coming to an end. You seemingly can never have enough catchers, especially after seeing what the team has done this year, and we desperately needed some middle infielders. I’m very happy with today’s draft.

  16. Mike Honcho on June 9th, 2009 9:45 pm

    This was a poor first day. I wasn’t in the Mariner “war room,” and I didn’t see their draft board, but I have a very hard time believing Franklin was at the top of the board at 27, and that Baron was the top guy at 33.

    And that’s the whole problem. Even if Scheppers did have poor medicals, Paxton was another guy who would have been better for this organization than Franklin or Baron. Either guy would have had more impact on this organization than the HS kids we drafted, from what I’ve read.

    I’m sure Franklin and Baron are nice, solid players. They just weren’t the best players. I understand money concerns keeping them from getting two players at or above slot at 27 and 33 (although that sure didn’t stop the bankrupt Mr. Hicks and the Rangers today – what system they are going to have). But if you keep calling this the most important draft in team history, take the opportunity to improve your system as much as possible.

    And nobody can argue that the team is better off right now with Ackley/Franklin/Baron/Poythress/Seager that it would have been with Ackley/Franklin/Scheppers/Poythress/Bailey(Churchill favorite).

    Simply put, the team did not put talent first. I fully understand that money is an issue, but when our financial situation is better than Texas’, but they go and get Purke AND Scheppers, you get a bit angry.

    Bottom line, the team didn’t do as well as it easily could have, and as such it was a disappointing first day.

  17. scotje on June 9th, 2009 10:18 pm

    Assuming Texas can actually sign everyone.

    Would it really be better to draft 5 guys if there was a significant chance that you would only be able to afford to sign 3 of them?

  18. Slurve on June 9th, 2009 10:29 pm

    The reason why this people called this a “horrible” draft was because people didn’t get the player they wanted and that is a very BS reason to call this a bad draft.

  19. Manzanillos Cup on June 9th, 2009 10:35 pm

    …but this is one of those situations where the team had significantly more knowledge about the players than we did.

    Exactly. Amazing how many people think they have a better grasp on things than McNamara and Co. We’re talking about people who have proven themselves as some of the best evaluators in the business. This is this FO’s M.O.

    I wonder if money is being saved for some elite
    international talent.

  20. Mothy on June 9th, 2009 10:48 pm

    I wouldn’t call this a bad draft but I do have mixed feelings about it. The fan in me is a little annoyed because I don’t believe they drafted the most talented guys available, with the exception of #2, and I guess #51 maybe. It always upsets me as a fan when my team won’t spend the money.
    But, I have enough common sense to understand this is real life and there are gonna be restraints, and given the restraints they did a pretty damn fine job. All five are legitimate prospects, and four of the five (maybe) play in a position that there is a lack of depth in our system. Plus with the frequency of arm injuries among pitching prospects it kind of makes sense to not draft them high up.
    But really either way I can’t get too mad. It’s not like they drafted a relief pitcher with their first round pick… And with the failure rate of prospects, I suppose any player they would have picked has an equal chance of delivering a pizza to my door as delivering value on a big lead squad. So I can’t get worked up about percieved misses. I’ll just take joy that the picks made more sense than the last few years drafts.

  21. Jeff Nye on June 9th, 2009 10:53 pm

    Honestly, the only pick I’m not pretty happy about is Baron, and like Dave said, we’ve known that was coming for weeks now.

    If Zduriencik and McNamara think this is the best set of 5 guys that they could get within their budget constraints, I’m inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt.

    Drafting all the talent in the world doesn’t help you if you can’t sign that talent, and I swear some of you are reacting like we went out and drafted Bucky LaGrange.

  22. Mark Oh on June 9th, 2009 11:44 pm

    Hmm.. Tony Gywnn was drafted as a fat boy in the third. We should be so lucky. Just for the similarities, on paper. Good draft. Looking back on all of the prospect that wee being drooled upon, (so many Z product, Braun, Fielder, et. al.) I like what we got, a solid ball player that can cover more than one position if need be. Also our fielding depth in minors was atrocious, now decent.

  23. Dave on June 10th, 2009 6:54 am

    And that’s the whole problem. Even if Scheppers did have poor medicals, Paxton was another guy who would have been better for this organization than Franklin or Baron. Either guy would have had more impact on this organization than the HS kids we drafted, from what I’ve read.

    The Mariners scouted Scheppers heavier than any other team. They were at practically every game he threw this year. And they passed on him three times. That should tell you where he was on their draft board.

    The M’s took Franklin at #27 because he wasn’t going to get to them at #33. They didn’t reach for him – he was going in the first round whether they took him or not. And he was pretty high up their board.

    Baron was the cost saving pick. Franklin was a best player available pick. You might not agree that Franklin was the best player available, but you have to admit that they know a lot more about this than you do.

  24. The Ancient Mariner on June 10th, 2009 7:57 am

    Honestly, I’m no genius and I’ve never been a scout, but if the M’s had drafted Scheppers, I would have been highly displeased. Yeah, sure, he’s a great talent, but signing him to a contract is putting $4 million on one spin of the roulette wheel; with the arm problems he’s already had, the odds that he flames out well short of the majors are high. And beyond that, among the pitchers, who would you have taken? I know Churchill loves Paxton and would have been happy taking him at #2, but I also know he’d seen a real drop in his fastball at the tail end of the season, and there were folks with doubts about him; if the M’s didn’t think he was a good value pick, I certainly can’t claim to know better than they do. Beyond that, all the high-ceiling prep arms were off the board, and all the remaining top college pitchers seemed to have “convert to closer” stamped on their forehead, and we don’t need another one of those.

    From what I’ve read, I don’t have any problems with either Franklin or Baron. You’d have to think it’s good odds that Franklin goes to the Rays at #30, given who they picked the way things went; and as for Baron, if our scouts think there’s more offense in there, everything I’ve seen on the kid looks to me like they’re right. It’s up to the coaches, but the physical ability is there — and he’s already a great prospect behind the plate. I think there’s a good chance that we look back on that pick a few years from now and say, “Boy, our scouts were smarter than everyone else on that guy.” Remember, Vernon Wells and Alexis Rios were both considered overdrafts and signability picks.

    I think the real lesson from this draft is that our area scout for the southeast will be getting a raise, since our picks so far have gone North Carolina, Florida, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina.

  25. Mike Snow on June 10th, 2009 8:13 am

    Tony Gywnn was drafted as a fat boy in the third.

    You must only be able to remember late-career Tony Gwynn. He didn’t look like that when he was drafted.

  26. msb on June 10th, 2009 8:22 am

    Very true. Don’t forget his basketball career as well.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.