Author Topic: Follow The Prospects : Matt Skole 3B  (Read 18431 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline RD

  • Posts: 1440
Re: Follow The Prospects : Matt Skole 3B
« Reply #50: June 24, 2012, 11:14:54 PM »
RD - If you want to know a team that did a lot of cheap top 10 picks, look no further than the Red Sox.  3 of their top 10 picks signed for a total of $27K. 

Do you agree that the Nats seem a little passive in their signing and promotion of college guys, at least recently?  After Storen and Strasburg, that is.

I know some teams went real cheap in an effort to make up for drafting over slot type of guys. I havent looked at everyones draft, but I would imagine 90% of the team did that, with at least one pick. Everyone to varying degrees of course.

All Im saying is, Skole has performed well, but he was taken where he was expected to go, and signed where he expected to go. We didn't go the Red Sox route and completely punt picks to go big elsewhere. We did overdraft a few people to save some money, but we also drafted guys like Mooneyham and Kieboom, even Renda to a certain extent that signed for slot or near slot. We did get Renda for a savings, but he was a borderline top 100 guy taken at 80. Skole fits this group, so Skole is still the type of player we could have taken, under the strategy we displayed this year.

And of course, Skole could also prove to be the kind of guy that gets bumped up to the second or third round from the 5th, to save a little cash. So we can still add Skole types of talents on draft day. Its all about scouting. It is a crapshoot whether its the 5th, 6th, or 15th round. Scouting and development is what will make the difference.

I think we did a decent job spreading out our draft strategy. We definitely overdrafted a couple guys to save some cash, but we didn't drafted 35th round talents(signing for $1,000) in the 5th and 6th round to do it. We drafted a couple guys for slot or near it, and went big with one guy. While this draft will be determined by Giolito's success, we did land a couple guys who have a legit chance at impacting the big league club. We didn't punt on 9 picks just to get Giolito signed. I wish we would have gone with a couple more HSers in the top ten, but that's just about spreading the ages of talent throughout the system better.

Definitely agree they seem a bit passive on promoting guys. It seems like only the premium guys get pushed through at a rapid pace. I dont know if its just a cautionary thing in general, but it appears that we've loaded up on certain positions and it causes a bit of a log jam. We've drafted a lot of college middle infielders over the past couple years ... Kelso, Martinson, Hague, and Kobernus, then traded for a couple of similar age in Zach Walters and Cutter Dykstra, and one of the International guys in Adrian Sanchez is a part of the group. That doesn't include corner guys like Rendon or Skole. To get all those guys enough time to develop, some have shifted to the corners to get AB's. While I think Im in the group that many of you are in thinking Skole has proven more than any of them and should play, who gets the boot(whether thats a promotion to Harrisburg, a demotion to Hagerstown or solely to the bench)? Hague was a high pick that has to play. He hasn't earned a promotion to AA and is struggling, but you can't push him to the bench or promote him. Demoting him will likely result in Skole type of numbers(based on his scouting reports). Martinson probably earned a promotion to Potomac after a solid season at Hagerstown last year, and he was forced to start at Hagerstown again. He just got his well deserved promotion. He deserves to play at Potomac. Sanchez and Kelso are versatile and can move around a bit, and already had a full year at Hagerstown already.

Thats a part of the reason I wanted some more HS talent in the system. Then we go and draft two more middle infielders in the top 10! lol. Like I said, I dont know if that has anything to do with it. Since Kelso profiles as more of a utility guy and Sanchez hasnt had as much success(and neither have the upside of a Hague), I would probably demote one of them back to Hagerstown for Skole. That's just me though.

And of course, this only applies to infielders. It doesn't have anything to do with why Goodwin is still down at Hagerstown. Allowing Michael Taylor to roam center is probably the biggest reason why he's still down.

In general though, yes, I agree that they do seem a bit passive in assignments and promotions. For younger guys, I think its better to be more passive at the younger levels while the players gain confidence and work on their games against guys still developing(as opposed to players that are pushing for the bigs within a year) but guys like Skole and Goodwin in particular look like they deserve to be at a higher level.