M’s Tap Woodinville RHP Luke Taylor, #282

Jay Yencich · June 8, 2010 at 12:21 pm · Filed Under Mariners 

Represent, NW. Someone had to aside from the Rays.

At 6’6 and 200 lbs, it’s ridiculous to think that Taylor was at one point a shortstop. Scouts love his mechanics, but as velocity goes, he’s only sitting high-80s at this point. He was thought to have a pretty good commitment to Hawaii, though I’d say the M’s could help talk him out of that. Another guy who’s big on projection and a little short on present ability. It’s a solid pick if we can bring him in. I’m really loving everything we’re doing.

MLB.com video


10 Responses to “M’s Tap Woodinville RHP Luke Taylor, #282”

  1. charliebrown on June 8th, 2010 12:24 pm

    Jay, it seems like most of these guys are a gamble. That’s expected in the later rounds like this but are Walker and Littlewood as close to “sure things” as you can get in the draft?

  2. Jay Yencich on June 8th, 2010 12:26 pm

    I’d say that all our picks through five were pretty fantastic. At this point, you’re getting into guys that are more questionable, which is why I’m calling it off after ten.

  3. charliebrown on June 8th, 2010 12:27 pm

    Gotcha. Thanks Jay.

  4. dnc on June 8th, 2010 12:29 pm

    Not Jay, but no, Walker and Littlewood are not low risk players at their slots. For one thing, they’re high schoolers, who always carry a little more inherent risk. Walker is a very raw kid, even for his age, whereas Littlewood is a bit more developed.

    The M’s appear to be swinging for the fences with this draft, but Stanek and Paxton were fantastic values at their slot, and the rest of the draft appears to be very solid. It’s a risky draft, but if one of Walker/Paxton/Stanek pan out it was worthwhile. If more than one of them hits it was a home run draft.

  5. Chris_From_Bothell on June 8th, 2010 12:30 pm

    Is the proportion of pitchers to position players correct, for this draft specifically and for drafts in general?

    I know it’s short-sighted of me, but given all the problems we’ve seemed to have with home-growing guys who can hit for average or power, and especially problems at catcher, I’d have expected less pitchers.

    Or is it just a matter of picking just whoever is best when it’s one’s turn, regardless of what position they play?

  6. smb on June 8th, 2010 12:31 pm

    In Z we trust. Buck stops at him with these drafts, at least for my own future historical analysis. If we have Milwaukee’s farm system in 5 years I’d be thrilled.

  7. dnc on June 8th, 2010 12:35 pm

    Or is it just a matter of picking just whoever is best when it’s one’s turn, regardless of what position they play?


    Because the earliest you expect any of these guys to hit the bigs is three years, and in some cases up to five, you can’t make a habit of drafting for need. You just have no way of knowing what your needs will be by the time they’re ready.

    Occasionally you might use a very high choice on a college stud to try and fill a need (since those players are likeliest to move quickly), but that often backfires too. See Clement, Jeff and Fields, Josh for details.

    Best signable player available is always the right strategy in a baseball draft. There’s just too many variables to proceed otherwise.

  8. Adam B. on June 8th, 2010 12:36 pm

    I’m obviously not Jay either…

    I think it largely depends on what you mean by “gamble”. The M’s picks are certainly all risky to reach their ceilings, but most are likely to sign for something approaching slot (with perhaps Paxton as the exception), and the Mariners really needed to restock on projectable arms in their lower levels. So in those terms these were relatively safe picks.

  9. Pete Livengood on June 8th, 2010 12:37 pm

    Also not Jay, but we’d do well to remember that ALL of these draft picks are a “gamble.” There are very few sure picks, especially when you don’t pick until #43.

    As for the proportion of pitchers to position players…meh. We have to remember that, as far away as these guys are, and as variable as developmental rates can be, you really can’t look at any one draft in isolation. Look at about a rolling three-year period, and don’t forget to look at international signings, where the M’s have done pretty well over the last 10 years or so. And, at the end of the day (to use a Z-ism), there are always trades available, especially if you are over-stocked with intriguing power pitchers. It’ll all work out fine.

  10. Jay Yencich on June 8th, 2010 12:39 pm

    That’s pretty much right on guys. They’re risky, but I’m also willing to accept Littlewood at #67 where I would have slammed it at #43.

    Walker for me will be the big question mark as I don’t know how the M’s will manage to teach him solid mechanics. Otherwise, there were a lot of picks that catered specifically to the strengths of development that we do have, like tweaking swings and strength training.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.