Baseball America’s decade of draft grades


We all love draft grades, so Jim Callis of Baseball America went nuts and graded out each team’s draft from 2000-2009 (sub. req’d). He has the Red Sox coming up with the highest GPA at 3.40, with the Diamondbacks not too far back at 3.20. Boston’s four grade A’s and a B+ from 2001-2005 will do that. The Yankees came in 26th overall, ahead of the Mets, White Sox, Astros, and Mariners. They received four straight D’s from 2000-2003 since Phil Coke is pretty much the only thing they have to show for those efforts. Phil Hughes alone earned them a B in 2004, and the epiphany draft of 2006 was an A. Everything else was a C or C+, and their overall GPA is 1.95. I think they put you on academic probation for that.

Categories : Asides, Draft


  1. Jake H says:

    I like Jim Callis but he has some Sox bias. What I also don’t like is that they don’t take draft position into effect when grading these drafts nor do they take into account more or less picks.

    • Steve H says:

      I actually think Callis is pretty straight down the line. He’s always liked Hughes, even when others were jumping ship.

      There has to be some, even if in the subconcious, to kind of agree with what others are saying. Everyone praises the Sox drafts, so #1 they are probably good drafts, and #2 if you don’t praise them, it’ll look bad (especially if you’re proven wrong).

      • Mr. Sparkle says:

        Actually, he’s not. I knew before I even clicked the link that the Red Sox would be ranked #1. That stinks of bias and Jake is correct in that you can’t just flat out judge drafts on the players involved. There are a lot of other factors in play. Another he didn’t mention…signability. Some teams know they won’t be able to sign certain players due to not wanting to shell out a hefty signing bonus, so they pass. Therefore, some teams’ scores would be affected by this. Most likely not the Yankees, but it has a ripple effect on the entire draft.

        You can’t just look at the picks, say, “Oh, they drafted Hanley Ramirez that year…A+.” You have to examine why he might have been available.

  2. nathan says:

    Its because we draft last everytime. Lol.

    I do think they fluffed the CJ Henry draft (was it 05), there was some quality names that they could have drafted over Henry.

    I do wonder if Brackman and Garcia didnt get hurt and if the Yanks had signed Cole would that have gotten them a B-. Its uncomfortable to be in the neighborhood of Mets, that’s Sucks-ville.

    • crawdaddy says:

      Who cares, it’s only BA making these rankings.

    • Templeton "Brendog" Peck says:

      Its uncomfortable to be in the neighborhood of Mets, that’s Sucks-ville.

      the yankees have only missed the playoffs once during this time period, have made it to 4 WS, and won 2 of them.

      the mets have lost in the ws to the yankees and what, made the playoffs oen other time? but they have set the record for end of the season collapses

      • Templeton "Brendog" Peck says:

        for perspective obv

        • Steve H says:

          This. And like crawdaddy said, it’s rankings that shouldn’t get anyone riled up.

          The rankings have zero effect on the field. The drafting obviously does, but what’s done is done there. Give the Red Sox a 5.0 on a 4 point scale and it doesn’t help them or hurt the Yankees.

        • nathan says:

          and let that trend continue.

          I was just mentioning in the draft realm.

  3. JobaWockeeZ says:

    The Sox produced quite a few good players buuut how the hell did they get first?

  4. Pete says:

    “We all love draft grades”

    I don’t. Unless they’re compiled by running through each and every pick and making an assessment of each based on players available at that point in the draft, information available at the time, team budget constraints vs. asking prices, and juxtaposed against every other pick of that team’s draft. I love those.

    But if it’s “let’s grade each draft based on how its players have panned out”, then I’ll pass.

  5. 28 this year says:

    What players did Boston produce in all those A drafts?

    Does it compare to the 06 draft for the Yanks?

    I don’t have subscription,.

  6. Sweet Dick Willie says:

    Let the Sux continue to “win” the draft, as long as the Yanks continue to win where it counts.

  7. MikeD says:

    We gave up the first half of the decade so the score doesn’t surprise me.

  8. dutchsailor says:

    I think a more accurate assessment of those drafts would be to see how many players each draft has produced that are actually playing regularly and productive for the team, or else have gone in trades to bring in productive players. If you do that, I think that the Yankees are not too far behind the soks. Where were Cano, Gardner, and Cervelli in these drafts?

    • pat says:

      One was in the Dominican and one was in Venezuela.

    • JobaWockeeZ says:

      I can’t read the article but aren’t they doing that? But even if we’re looking at just productive players I’d agree the Sox beat the Yanks. I don’t think the Yanks are 26th but meh.

    • Ted Nelson says:

      Flaws in the comment aside, there is a good point here… I mean how do you grade the 2009 draft at this point? Does everyone besides the Nationals and Reds get an F? No one else has had a player actually reach the majors that I know of. 2008 is largely the same thing. How these guys are doing in low-A ball only means so much, unless they’re used as trade bait based on MiLB performance… If in a few years Brackman is a Yankee starter and Casey Kelly never makes the show… it doesn’t matter what BA thought of their prospects. (Granted, focusing on the early decade only makes the Yanks look worse.)

  9. I’ve got a feeling that if BA did a similar grade of the International Free Agent market, the Yankees would be at the head of the class.

  10. cookie says:

    We’re on double secret probation.

  11. AndrewYF says:

    I wonder how BA viewed the Red Sox’s draft back then? I think I saw somewhere that the Red Sox’s farm system was consistently ranked in the bottom 5 of teams in the early part of the decade.

    Yes, the Red Sox had good drafts and the Yankees had bad drafts in the early part of the decade. That’s pretty obvious, and it resulted in two straight years where the Red Sox were better than the Yankees. But all that means pretty much nothing in terms of how recent drafts will pan out.

    The storyline back in the early part of the decade was that the Yankees drafted/developed their players very well and were an historically successful team based off the back of their farm system, and the Red Sox drafted poorly and never won when it counted. How else do you explain BA’s rankings in the early part of the decade? (The Red Sox were ranked near last, and the Yankees were ranked near first, even when the Sox had Lester, Youkilis, Ramirez and more in their system and all the Yankees had were Dioner Navarro, Nick Johnson and Drew Henson) I have a strong feeling that a similar situation is happening now, where recent success/failure is having an inordinate effect on current system rankings.

Leave a Reply

You may use <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong> in your comment.

If this is your first time commenting on River Ave. Blues, please review the RAB Commenter Guidelines. Login for commenting features. Register for RAB.