I’m of two minds here. On the one hand, I share your annoyance at the organizational habit of drafting tools guys who don’t show much in the way of baseball skills… particularly since the Phils as an organization don’t seem to be very good at teaching those skills. The Collier pick makes sense because the guy is 17 and has played against quality opposition and held his own, so he’s both shown he can do it and has the time to develop. But Hewitt is 19, has struggled against better competition and might not come cheap; why pick him in the first round?

The other argument, though, is that we often blast the team for being overly risk-averse. (Less since Gillick replaced Wade, but still.) Can’t accuse them of that here. If you’re going to put down $1.5 million or so on a bet, it’s a defensible position to do that on a longshot-superstar rather than a decent-shot #4 starter or so-so regular type.

I was a little frustrated by day one, but greatly encouraged on day two. Now, I understand that we have to get the job done in regards to signing all of these HS kids, which I know we won’t sign them all, but even the majority would provide a great influx of talent. I was discouraged by the Hewiit pick, I really thought there were other avenues we could have gone with. However, I have a hard time arguing with many of their other picks. In general, I favor a high-ceiling HS kid to a middling reserve college guy. Finally, I am not sure where I read this from, but it explains a bit of why the Phillies draft the way that they do. I believe it was either Wolever or Arbuckle who said something along the lines of you don’t win championships with ok players, you win championships with great players, and so that is who they try and draft. Now, the Phillies have taken their share of low-ceiling slot guys, or 5th year seniors or what not, but they also take many high-ceiling toolsheds or high-ceiling injury concerns.

I think Happ could come in and even make out as a #3.