Kerber’s 2005 Draft Assessment

[Mark Kerber]

Here’s my quickie assessment of the draft. It won’t rival Pippin’s projections or Winick’s treatise, but perhaps it will get the discussion started. In general, I think this looks like a balanced and competitive year. Almost everyone seems to have a least a decent chance.

1. Flaming Brats. Came in loaded and didn’t screw it up. They did, however, leave some money on the table that could have been used to put a gap between themselves and the field.
2. Hoosier Daddies. Solid throughout, with the notable exception of the bullpen. Need Putz to break through or to acquire an "A" closer during the season.
3. Berliners. No major holes, but also no overwhelming strengths. A couple of positive breaks from the top and a couple of bad breaks from the second division.
4. Bombers.  Lots of offense, but questionable starting pitching. Remember to add in Sanchez’s SB’s when you do your projections.
5. Lake Michigan Calamari. Opposite of the Bombers. Plenty of pitching, but a weak offense. That’s usually the wrong risk to take.
6. Nukes. Decent draft, but didn’t have enough value coming in. Good offense, despite a couple of holes. Starting pitching an obvious weakness.
7. Protective Cups. Came in loaded and screwed it up. Adrian Gonzalez, Mark Teahen and Guillermo Quiroz aren’t this year" players. Similarly, $13 for Kazmir? Not out of the running, but didn’t do themselves any favors.
8. Klein Nine. Same team he drafts every year. Lots of offense and almost no pitching. Sometimes it works. We’ll see.
9. Angry Young Men. Good news–balanced. Bad news–below average across the board.
10. Republicans. Building for the future. Added some nice keepers, but won’t be contending this year.
11. Mighty Red Hots.  Came in with very little undervalue, then immediately went out and spent $81 on Podsednik and Beltre. That didn’t leave much to put together the rest of the team.  Upton, Sizemore and League form the nucleus of a promising future–but not this year.

Mark

[Author]

Posts