SeagerShotIt’s been nearly five years since the 2009 Major League Baseball Draft. For college draftees, it’s been plenty of time to determine with hindsight whether or not they warranted their selection. For high school picks, at the very least it’s safe to say the baseball world has a very good idea what kind of value they carry. In light of the previous two declarations, let’s see what the first natural round (30 picks) of the 2009 Draft might look like if we could use said 20-20 hindsight goggles.

A few notes first:
1. I did not consider signing bonus money or the team that owns the selections when making each pick
2. I considered value already provided in the big leagues as well as potential future value. As a result, some of the selections have not, at present, provided the most value among the players available for selection
3. I did consider players that did not sign, and a few of those appear below. Each of those went onto college and were drafted much higher the second time around, but since we’re using those awesome goggles…
4. There were just eight players chosen in the first round of the 2009 Draft that made the ReDraft. It can easily be argued that a handful more are worthy, however. It simply depends on what’s valued most and in the instances of players that have yet to crack the big leagues, how the beholder — yours truly — projects that player moving forward. There were a few picks I made because I was willing to risk passing on a quality player, such a Brian Dozier, to go for the higher upside, such as Mark Appel.
5. In many cases there is an argument that a player belongs higher or lower, even after utilizing a multi-tiered tie-breaker system that includes dozens of factors. It can be convincingly argued, in my opinion, that picks 3-5 should be No. 2, for example. I left out original pick No. 7 due to low upside and injuries, instead reaching for more long-term impact and overall value. Original pick No. 2, Dustin Ackley, fell to the end of the comp round and therefore does not appear below. I did try to continue to treat these players as draftees, considering a little more about what’s to come than what’s already happened. I’d say the formula was more 55-45 than 50-50 or 80-20.
6. The original picks are listed under the ‘Original’ column below, and, obviously, the ReDrafted choices under that column. The ‘Player’ column offers the round and overall spot that player was selected in 2009
7. Picks No. 11, 14, 15 and 26 did not sign. Pick 11 was drafted again n 2010 and signed. Picks 14 and 15 were drafted again in 2012 and signed. Pick 26 was drafted again in 2012, failed to sign once more, then finally signed after being drafted again in 2013
8. This exercise is in no way intended to suggest any club failed or succeeded in the 2009 draft; one round is not nearly enough data to complete such an assessment. It is interesting, however, that three third-round picks were selected in the top 22 and 10 players that were picked after Round 9 appear in the first round of the ReDraft


Jason A. Churchill


  1. Aksavage, you can go look up Jason’s response if you want. I’m not wasting my time. His explanation was good enough for rjfrik, such that he doesn’t pine on about it anymore. I’m not going to mis-quote Jason. Maybe he’ll explain it again for you.

    As for signing Josh Fields……..what’s the premise of this thread? The premise is, that hindsight is 20/20. How many of the guys that are on the list, who were drafted in rounds 10 and after, do you think other GMs would pick now, if they knew how they would turn out?

    As for Jack’s decision to sign Josh, I can’t speak to his decison to do so, but it must have been a good one, because he values first round picks. I assure you, he didn’t rely on a magic eight ball to make the choice. Everyone has opinions, but so what? Did you have all the scouting data that’s necessary to move from opinion to analyzed estimated value? Scouting is wrong more than it’s right. If it was easy, they could just run a poll and ask fans who to pick.

    I’m not going to justify Jack’s decision, but just as easily, but at best, there was only a slight possibility they would have selected Trout. First round picks are high probability of success selections. Considering that 24 GMs had a chance to draft Trout, suggests that for all his value now, teams had their doubts about his ultimate future. It happens…..ask Albert Pujouis.

    At some point, people need to get out of the “should have” world. Hindsight is always 20/20, and is only a unit of measure that is used as historical data to help make sure it doesn’t happen again.

  2. Edman… how does that make any sense? How would Trout be taken just ahead of Seattle if we still had the pick? We would of had the 21st pick… and trout was drafted 25th. I remember reading about how the Mariners had scouted Trout and he was supposedly on their draft board. I dont know how true that rumor is. The Mariners shouldn’t have signed Fields. Im surprised Jack Z ended up signing him. Even if the Mariners didn’t end up drafting Trout with that pick, IMO there was so much more value in keeping that pick than signing Fields. He was just a relief pitcher out of college. You don’t waste 1st round picks on relief pitchers.

  3. Out of the 30 first-round selections, ten were selected in the first round, and nine were selected in the 10th round or later. So yes, it is a crapshoot. I’ve said that many times, and some have disagreed with that position. That’s why I don’t get concerned when a first round play fails to meet expectation. It’s a common occurance. To me, the critical draft positions are between rounds 2 thru 6. Seattle has been very good at getting value with those picks.

    Can we drop the “if they hadn’t sign Josh Fields” argument? Jason debunked that last year, with rjfrik’s similar claims. It was pointed out to him that Trout would have been taken just ahead of Seattle, if they had the pick. I think it’s time to put that myth to bed.

  4. Wow – the draft is such a crapshoot!

  5. Hate to say couldashouldawoulda, but think about this:

    -the M’s signed college reliever Josh Fields at #20 the year before (the last draft by the Bavasi regime). As a college senior, they were able to negotiate with him until right before the draft. The new regime decided to sign him for reasons that still escape me. If they hadn’t, they’d have had the #21 pick in the 2009 draft.

    -the M’s were rumored to be seriously interested in Mike Trout leading up to the 2009 draft

    -Mike Trout was drafted #25

    If the M’s hadn’t signed Josh Fields, we might very well have drafted Mike Trout. Ugh.

    As a side note, Fields was signed as a reliever who would be able to help the team immediately. He never pitched for the M’s. He’s now playing for the Astros.

    As a side side note, if you need any more reasons to dislike Bill Bavasi, go look at the 2008 and 2007 draft results. Absolutely putrid. The only guys who even won playing time from those two drafts were relievers Brandon Maurer and Shawn Kelley. Both were late round picks. They could have probably done that well using a random selection process.

  6. Nice to see Seager so high up there.

    As you warned, don’t judge a draft by one round, but LAA has 4 first rounders in your redraft. That has to be considered a good draft. Heck, if they had only drafted Trout, that would be a good draft. St Louis also had 4. Washington had 3 redrafted 1st rounders.

  7. Just think if Jack had not signed Josh Fields, we also would have had a pick around 20.

  8. Nice work Jason. Love your thinking on Paxton. Ranking him him more highly than Myers is interesting. Have a lot of hopes for him this year.

  9. Where did Franklin land?

  10. Great article. Would love to see a bit more analysis with it.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.