Re: Articles
Posted: Sat Sep 01, 2012 6:08 pm
By Jim Ingraham
JIngraham@News-Herald.com
@jitribeinsider
Click to enlarge
Los Angeles Angels' Mike Trout celebrates as he scores past Boston Red Sox catcher Ryan Lavarnway, rear, on a hit by Torii Hunter during first inning of an baseball in Anaheim, Calif., Wednesday, Aug. 29, 2012. (AP Photo/Chris Carlson)
Two words.
Uttered at the right time in the right place by the right person — who knows how much Cleveland baseball history could have been altered?
On that early June 2009 afternoon, during the first round of Major League Baseball's June Draft, let us contemplate the potential repercussions had Indians scouting director Brad Grant, when asked to identify the team's selection with the 15th pick of the first round of that draft, uttered the following two words:
"Mike Trout."
This is not meant to pile on the Indians for missing on a once-in-a-generation potentially Hall of Fame-bound 21-year-old superstar — because on this the Indians are not alone.
Everyone missed on Trout, who wasn't selected by the Angels until the 25th pick of the first round of the 2009 draft.
Trout, in fact, wasn't even the first high school outfielder taken by the Angels in that draft. With the 24th pick, the pick right before they took New Jersey native Trout, the Angels selected a high school outfielder from Texas named Randal Grichuk.
It was only after they took Grichuk that the Angels drafted Trout.
Washington and Arizona both had two picks in the first round before Trout was picked, but neither team used either pick on Trout. One of Washington's picks, to be fair, was the unassailable first pick in the draft, Stephen Strasburg.
The point being, 24 names were called in the first round before that of the player who could become the 2012 American League Most Valuable Player and Rookie of the Year. Continued...
123See Full Story
Instead of "Mike Trout," the name Brad Grant called as the 15th pick was Alex White, the University of North Carolina pitcher who was on the verge of what appeared to be a promising major-league career when the Indians traded him to Colorado as part of the Ubaldo Jimenez trade.
So while all the teams that passed on Trout are kicking themselves today, perhaps none of those teams could have benefitted more by selecting Trout, given what he's turned out to be — and appears capable of becoming — than the Indians.
First and foremost, if the Indians had drafted Trout, their lineup today would have at least one player capable of creating a buzz. Aside from not winning many games this year, the Indians are also a really boring team.
There's no star power, nobody on the roster you would still come to see even if the team was losing.
In addition to being arguably the best player in the American League, Trout is also the most exciting. He's Grady Sizemore in his prime — except he's faster, a better baserunner and a better hitter.
Another way to look at it: if Sizemore was still in his prime he'd be considered a poor man's Mike Trout. That's no knock on Sizemore, that's how great Trout's season has been.
If the Indians had drafted Trout, he'd be playing center field and hitting first or third in the lineup. The offense would be better because he'd be getting more hits, getting on base more times, stealing more bases, driving in more runs, and scoring more runs than any Indians player.
The pitching would be better because Trout would be doing all those offensive things — which would result in more run support for the pitchers — and he'd be running balls down in the outfield that no Indians outfielder can get to.
If the Indians had drafted Trout, they would not have signed Sizemore to a $5 million contract, which would have given them $5 million more with which to player shop last winter.
If the Indians had drafted Trout, they wouldn't have drafted Alex White, which might have made the Ubaldo Jimenez trade un-doable, which would have been a plus for the Indians for multiple financial and competitive reasons. Continued...
123See Full Story
If the Indians had drafted Trout, they would have had a cornerstone player around whom to build a team that would be more attractive to free agents.
If the Indians had drafted Trout, they would have been a more marketable and visible team nationally. There is value in that.
If the Indians had drafted Trout, left field wouldn't have been a problem this year because Michael Brantley would have played it all year.
If the Indians had drafted Trout, he would, even at age 21, be the face of the franchise now, and for at least the next five or six years. Because let's face it, who is the face of the franchise now?
Bottom line: No team in the majors could use Mike Trout more right now than the Indians, but they chose not to draft him — and so did almost every other team in the majors
JIngraham@News-Herald.com
@jitribeinsider
Click to enlarge
Los Angeles Angels' Mike Trout celebrates as he scores past Boston Red Sox catcher Ryan Lavarnway, rear, on a hit by Torii Hunter during first inning of an baseball in Anaheim, Calif., Wednesday, Aug. 29, 2012. (AP Photo/Chris Carlson)
Two words.
Uttered at the right time in the right place by the right person — who knows how much Cleveland baseball history could have been altered?
On that early June 2009 afternoon, during the first round of Major League Baseball's June Draft, let us contemplate the potential repercussions had Indians scouting director Brad Grant, when asked to identify the team's selection with the 15th pick of the first round of that draft, uttered the following two words:
"Mike Trout."
This is not meant to pile on the Indians for missing on a once-in-a-generation potentially Hall of Fame-bound 21-year-old superstar — because on this the Indians are not alone.
Everyone missed on Trout, who wasn't selected by the Angels until the 25th pick of the first round of the 2009 draft.
Trout, in fact, wasn't even the first high school outfielder taken by the Angels in that draft. With the 24th pick, the pick right before they took New Jersey native Trout, the Angels selected a high school outfielder from Texas named Randal Grichuk.
It was only after they took Grichuk that the Angels drafted Trout.
Washington and Arizona both had two picks in the first round before Trout was picked, but neither team used either pick on Trout. One of Washington's picks, to be fair, was the unassailable first pick in the draft, Stephen Strasburg.
The point being, 24 names were called in the first round before that of the player who could become the 2012 American League Most Valuable Player and Rookie of the Year. Continued...
123See Full Story
Instead of "Mike Trout," the name Brad Grant called as the 15th pick was Alex White, the University of North Carolina pitcher who was on the verge of what appeared to be a promising major-league career when the Indians traded him to Colorado as part of the Ubaldo Jimenez trade.
So while all the teams that passed on Trout are kicking themselves today, perhaps none of those teams could have benefitted more by selecting Trout, given what he's turned out to be — and appears capable of becoming — than the Indians.
First and foremost, if the Indians had drafted Trout, their lineup today would have at least one player capable of creating a buzz. Aside from not winning many games this year, the Indians are also a really boring team.
There's no star power, nobody on the roster you would still come to see even if the team was losing.
In addition to being arguably the best player in the American League, Trout is also the most exciting. He's Grady Sizemore in his prime — except he's faster, a better baserunner and a better hitter.
Another way to look at it: if Sizemore was still in his prime he'd be considered a poor man's Mike Trout. That's no knock on Sizemore, that's how great Trout's season has been.
If the Indians had drafted Trout, he'd be playing center field and hitting first or third in the lineup. The offense would be better because he'd be getting more hits, getting on base more times, stealing more bases, driving in more runs, and scoring more runs than any Indians player.
The pitching would be better because Trout would be doing all those offensive things — which would result in more run support for the pitchers — and he'd be running balls down in the outfield that no Indians outfielder can get to.
If the Indians had drafted Trout, they would not have signed Sizemore to a $5 million contract, which would have given them $5 million more with which to player shop last winter.
If the Indians had drafted Trout, they wouldn't have drafted Alex White, which might have made the Ubaldo Jimenez trade un-doable, which would have been a plus for the Indians for multiple financial and competitive reasons. Continued...
123See Full Story
If the Indians had drafted Trout, they would have had a cornerstone player around whom to build a team that would be more attractive to free agents.
If the Indians had drafted Trout, they would have been a more marketable and visible team nationally. There is value in that.
If the Indians had drafted Trout, left field wouldn't have been a problem this year because Michael Brantley would have played it all year.
If the Indians had drafted Trout, he would, even at age 21, be the face of the franchise now, and for at least the next five or six years. Because let's face it, who is the face of the franchise now?
Bottom line: No team in the majors could use Mike Trout more right now than the Indians, but they chose not to draft him — and so did almost every other team in the majors