Red Sox Select LHP Jason Groome 12th Overall

[Pilgrim]

ESPN/Fangraphs prospects guy:

Shawn: What are the character concerns on Jason Groome? Feel like whatever they are, they are overstated – kid’s only 17yo

Eric A Longenhagen: I’ll say that there are issues and some of them are definitely of the, “Come one, he’s 17” ilk while others are not. Those latter issues are not so bad that I’d just take the kid off the board, but they’d give me pause and force me to sit down with the kid and learn about him. I will also say that some of what was circulating in the industry about him was absolute BS and teams were trying to Marino him down toward their pick, which I think is despicable.

 

[simplicio]

You have your whole life to get it together.

If you want to make it in baseball you have to take your craft seriously from the jump. Yes, you get a second and third chance, but the third chance is usually with a second team (meaning that the risk the Red Sox are taking doesn't pay off if he finally makes it with another team - see Josh Hamilton, the Rays got $50K in the rule 5 draft to show for Hamilton). And frankly, guys who putz away their first couple years of development don't typically make anything of themselves. So it adds significant risk. We can hope the Red Sox can help him out. But, you know, there isn't a lot of evidence they have magic powers. Look at Jon Denney, look at Michael Kopech. I think writing it off as just being a kid is tremendously naive, and if that was all it was he would have been drafted in the top 7.

Just to re-iterate, I think it was a good pick. Just saying that you can't completely write off these things as "he's 17!" unless you're Stevie Nicks.

Sure, there's a risk to it. Kids can have an incredible capacity for stupidity and irresponsible behavior, and with some there's just no way around it. But I think it's also worth noting that both IMG and Vanderbilt are schools, and we're dealing with a kid who plainly stated he doesn't like school and just wants to play baseball. Maybe he'll click with pro life just fine, who knows.

 

[Maximus]

Love this pick @ 12. We need more elite arms in the organization and although there is risk (17 year old HS player, signability issue, etc.), I would have taken the same risk for the potential high reward.

 

[NickEsasky]

Talent-wise you have to love the pick. My biggest fear is that the red flags are related to a Jeff Allison-type situation.

 

[shaggydog2000]

John Manuel on the broadcast said he talked to a scouting director who had the largest dossier on Groome as he had on any other player in the draft.

And I heard that surfer dude pulled a knife on Mr. Hand......

Un-named sources of third hand information that is incredibly vague. Definitely more important than taking the potential #1 pick in the 12th slot.

 

[Jed Zeppelin]

The MLB draft and the route any prospect has to take before sniffing the bigs are such that character concerns are barely on my radar aside from the truly despicable (violence and the like). This isn't the NFL or NBA where the guy is on your roster from day one, impacting games, affecting the locker room, and so on. If he washes out before reaching the bigs, all you've lost is a proportionally tiny bonus, the time and energy of development personnel, and the opportunity cost represented by alternative draft picks we could've made.

Given his reported talent, 100% worth the risk (imo) that he reaches the bigs and badly mucks things up in Boston.

 

[Marbleheader]

Radio idiots already crapping on Groome and the Red Sox for potentially overpaying for him.

 

[E5 Yaz]

Keith Law's chat answer to the Groome "issues" question:

To me it's immaturity and idiocy. No violence, no felonies, not a sociopath. I am more concerned about Delvin Perez's makeup than Groome's.

 

[AlNipper49]

The MLB draft and the route any prospect has to take before sniffing the bigs are such that character concerns are barely on my radar aside from the truly despicable (violence and the like). This isn't the NFL or NBA where the guy is on your roster from day one, impacting games, affecting the locker room, and so on. If he washes out before reaching the bigs, all you've lost is a proportionally tiny bonus, the time and energy of development personnel, and the opportunity cost represented by alternative draft picks we could've made.

Given his reported talent, 100% worth the risk (imo) that he reaches the bigs and badly mucks things up in Boston.

Funny enough, when Hazen was down in Greenville earlier this year he couldn't say enough about the importance of Drive manager Darren Fenster's ability to work with younger players. Without saying it out loud he basically gave him credit for working with Moncada, who apparently had a BIG attitude problem early on.

Fenster is one of those dudes who nobody ever says a bad word about.

 

[Mighty Joe Young]

So . any clues on Groome's placement once he signs? Is he off to the Florida Rookie League (likely given his age) or making the jump to Lowell (likely given his talent)?

 

[Marbleheader]

I'd guess Lowell. Have him nearby.

 

[Seabass]

Keith Law in his chat today on Groome's makeup:

To me it's immaturity and idiocy. No violence, no felonies, not a sociopath. I am more concerned about Delvin Perez's makeup than Groome's.

 

[E5 Yaz]

Keith Law in his chat today on Groome's makeup:

I mean, it was only four posts and an hour ago

But, here's a couple other mentions from the chat

I know what's up with Groome - I did some background work of my own to check on some of the rumors (nearly all of which turned out to be false ... for example, he was not kicked out of IMG). But I can't say exactly what I know because ESPN has editorial standards for reporting and I abide by those.

(Make-up) matters more than you think. You're handing the kid six or seven figures, then asking him to go be a professional, with all the responsibilities of conditioning, work ethic, discipline, and behavior that many people don't encounter until they're 19 or 21 or 23.

 

[Byrdbrain]

I doubt they would have a 17 year old in Lowell with college kids and other "veteran" ml players, my assumption is he'll be in FL.

 

[Jed Zeppelin]

I mean, it was only four posts and an hour ago

But, here's a couple other mentions from the chat

I know what's up with Groome - I did some background work of my own to check on some of the rumors (nearly all of which turned out to be false ... for example, he was not kicked out of IMG). But I can't say exactly what I know because ESPN has editorial standards for reporting and I abide by those.

(Make-up) matters more than you think. You're handing the kid six or seven figures, then asking him to go be a professional, with all the responsibilities of conditioning, work ethic, discipline, and behavior that many people don't encounter until they're 19 or 21 or 23.

Only one part of Law's comments is truly eye-opening and concerning.

 

[ArttyG12]

Edit: already posted

 

[Sprowl]

Only one part of Law's comments is truly eye-opening and concerning.

And that part would be?

 

[DavidTai]

Presumably the 'ESPN editorial standards for reporting'.

 

[Sprowl]

Presumably the 'ESPN editorial standards for reporting'.

That sounds like something he can't back up in public because he'd have to admit how he came across the information, rather than because it's something especially damning about Groome's behavior.

That, or it's a sealed juvenile record or psychiatric report, I suppose.

Regardless, I'm on board with assuming some risk for a high-ceiling talent. Growing up erases a multitude of character flaws.

 

[Hagios]

Presumably the 'ESPN editorial standards for reporting'.

As a SoSH discussion grows longer, the probability of a deflategate reference approaches 1.

 

[Jed Zeppelin]

As a SoSH discussion grows longer, the probability of a deflategate reference approaches 1.

I suppose it is a Deflategate reference, in the sense that almost everything ESPN does is approached from questionable editorial angles. I had nothing specific in mind but disdain for the WWL.

Tangent aside, the Sox have yet to draft any of those no-leverage college seniors to boost Groome's party fund. All top-200 ranked college juniors so far

 

[E5 Yaz]

I suppose it is a Deflategate reference, in the sense that almost everything ESPN does is approached from questionable editorial angles. I had nothing specific in mind but disdain for the WWL.

Tangent aside, the Sox have yet to draft any of those no-leverage college seniors to boost Groome's party fund. All top-200 ranked college juniors so far

Did you answer Sprowl's question?

 

[Papelbon's Poutine]

That sounds like something he can't back up in public because he'd have to admit how he came across the information, rather than because it's something especially damning about Groome's behavior.

That, or it's a sealed juvenile record or psychiatric report, I suppose.

Law's always been pretty vocal about not passing along any specific information that might hurt a player's leverage or value in the draft. I'd imagine that's in part his own journalistic integrity (in part probably as you suggest, not being able to back it up or reveal/burn a source); part self preservation because he knows how the rumor mill goes and doesn't want to get burned himself from bad info; and part that he's very much against the draft system and how it limits the earning potential of the players and doesn't want to contribute to that. He took a very similar stance with Brady Aiken a couple years ago, having seen the MRIs (or spoken to one who did, I forget which) of his elbow and refusing to pass along specifics to his readers. Short of violence or drug/alcohol incidents (which are already known) I don't think I can recall him ever commenting on or being the person to reveal specific details about such things.

 

[johnnywayback]

Law's comment -- "No violence, no felonies, not a sociopath." -- clears it up for me. I am not at all bothered if he got caught with weed or had a buddy take a test for him or took a dump on his principal's desk or any of the other stuff I can think of that would fit that description. And if it is just a higher-than-average amount of dumbass adolescent behavior, I trust that the Red Sox, who have a recent history of paying attention to makeup, satisfied themselves that they could keep him on the right track as he grows up. Doesn't mean he won't have a Kopechian lapse in judgment or two, but I am extremely comfortable with the risk, because dat curveball.

 

[chrisfont9]

Law's always been pretty vocal about not passing along any specific information that might hurt a player's leverage or value in the draft. I'd imagine that's in part his own journalistic integrity (in part probably as you suggest, not being able to back it up or reveal/burn a source); part self preservation because he knows how the rumor mill goes and doesn't want to get burned himself from bad info; and part that he's very much against the draft system and how it limits the earning potential of the players and doesn't want to contribute to that. He took a very similar stance with Brady Aiken a couple years ago, having seen the MRIs (or spoken to one who did, I forget which) of his elbow and refusing to pass along specifics to his readers. Short of violence or drug/alcohol incidents (which are already known) I don't think I can recall him ever commenting on or being the person to reveal specific details about such things.

It's also possibly hearsay, maybe entirely hearsay. So you can't really confirm stuff without a lot of work on something that isn't all that important if it involves partying and clowning around.

 

[mauf]

13th pick next year if he fails to sign.

Thanks for the knowledge.

I don't know if DD sandbagged his later picks. If he did, that's bad. If he didn't and is prepared to roll the pick over if Groome's demands are unreasonable, that's fine. I just don't want to see the Sox stake the entire draft on this kid.

 

[Rovin Romine]

Isn't the most likely outcome of any pick that it amounts to nothing, especially outside of the early first round? If the chance of failure is inherent in every pick, why would you pass on a potential ace for the chance to sign a slightly more robust set of guys that will probably never sniff more than a cup of coffee?

http://www.soxprospects.com/dh2011.htm

 

[Bigpupp]

Thanks for the knowledge.

I don't know if DD sandbagged his later picks. If he did, that's bad. If he didn't and is prepared to roll the pick over if Groome's demands are unreasonable, that's fine. I just don't want to see the Sox stake the entire draft on this kid.

I don't think he did at all. He didn't take a college senior until round 7, when most though he would have to start doing that at round 4 to pay for Groome. There have been quite a few interesting picks thus far, which is nice, and not what I expected.

 

[mauf]

I don't think he did at all. He didn't take a college senior until round 7, when most though he would have to start doing that at round 4 to pay for Groome. There have been quite a few interesting picks thus far, which is nice, but not what I expected.

My concern isn't how DD's strategy differs from BC's. I don't know who is right; neither do you, and frankly neither do they. We'll all find out in five years.

My concern is that DD has refrained from selecting the available player (in his judgment) in each round. Doing that for the opportunity to select a kid with potential makeup issues is blameworthy, imo -- it's just bad process.

 

[Snodgrass'Muff]

My concern is that DD has refrained from selecting the available player (in his judgment) in each round. Doing that for the opportunity to select a kid with potential makeup issues is blameworthy, imo -- it's just bad process.

What are you basing this on?

 

[E5 Yaz]

What are you basing this on?

Which part?

 

[Bigpupp]

My concern isn't how DD's strategy differs from BC's. I don't know who is right; neither do you, and frankly neither do they. We'll all find out in five years.

My concern is that DD has refrained from selecting the available player (in his judgment) in each round. Doing that for the opportunity to select a kid with potential makeup issues is blameworthy, imo -- it's just bad process.

A few things. First, after the first round pick it probably isn't DD's draft anymore. There is a scouting department that takes over pretty quickly. Second, I understand that is your fear but don't know where it's coming from. So far the Red Sox have taken a lot of college players, but the names he has drafted have been very solid picks (Even the senior signs have been pretty good ones). No team is ever going to take BA's top 500 list and just pick the person at the top each time, but nothing about the draft so far seems as though they have held back from taking someone who they feel is the best player available at that pick.

 

[Pilgrim]

My concern isn't how DD's strategy differs from BC's. I don't know who is right; neither do you, and frankly neither do they. We'll all find out in five years.

My concern is that DD has refrained from selecting the available player (in his judgment) in each round. Doing that for the opportunity to select a kid with potential makeup issues is blameworthy, imo -- it's just bad process.

I doubt this is true. They didnt start taking guys who were under slot until the 7th round. Almost all of these guys are best player available in their view.

 

[simplicio]

http://www.soxprospects.com/dh2011.htm

Not sure what point that makes. Of course sometimes you strike gold in later rounds. But would we really be hurting if we'd been unable to sign Weems or Jerez, or if we didn't have an extra $800,000 to give to Cody Kukuk?

And beyond that, 2011 was exactly the type of draft where we more reasonably might have wanted to go under slot with our first pick, given that we had four first round picks then. Totally different situation this year.

 

[Mighty Joe Young]

Not sure what point that makes. Of course sometimes you strike gold in later rounds. But would we really be hurting if we'd been unable to sign Weems or Jerez, or if we didn't have an extra $800,000 to give to Cody Kukuk?

And beyond that, 2011 was exactly the type of draft where we more reasonably might have wanted to go under slot with our first pick, given that we had four first round picks then. Totally different situation this year.

Well .. Not in 2011 .. I don't think the slotting system was in play then ..

 

[Hagios]

Law's comment -- "No violence, no felonies, not a sociopath." -- clears it up for me. I am not at all bothered if he got caught with weed or had a buddy take a test for him or took a dump on his principal's desk or any of the other stuff I can think of that would fit that description. And if it is just a higher-than-average amount of dumbass adolescent behavior, I trust that the Red Sox, who have a recent history of paying attention to makeup, satisfied themselves that they could keep him on the right track as he grows up. Doesn't mean he won't have a Kopechian lapse in judgment or two, but I am extremely comfortable with the risk, because dat curveball.

I hope he pans out, but I'm not comfortable. Why did he leave IMG Academy? It's pretty much college sports without the hypocrisy. If you love baseball, going to the IMG Academy is like going to Disneyland. So why would he leave? Maybe he was just homesick, but maybe he can't handle being a small fish in a big pond. In high school he was the best anyone he knew had ever seen. At IMG Academy he's just another top tier talent. He's going to be pushed. He's going to have to work. He can't expect star treatment. Now, I wasn't there. It could have been a perfectly innocent reason. But given that Vanderbilt changed their mind about him too, it raises a pretty strong character flag to me. I don't care about weed, and from a strictly on-field perspective I don't even care about the violence/felonies/sociopath factor. But I do care if he's a diva who's coasting on talent.

In some ways Groome is that anti-Benintendi. Both great high school players. One has the physical makeup you expect of a great major leaguer but a questionable mental makeup. The other has the mental makeup but a questionable physical makeup (read: he's a little short to be a stormtrooper). I love the gamble on Benintendi - how couldn't you after Pedroia and Betts? But I'm not in love with Groome. Even if we get the outcome we're all hoping for, it doesn't seem like good process to me.

 

[E5 Yaz]

I hope he pans out, but I'm not comfortable. Why did he leave IMG Academy? It's pretty much college sports without the hypocrisy. If you love baseball, going to the IMG Academy is like going to Disneyland. So why would he leave? Maybe he was just homesick, but maybe he can't handle being a small fish in a big pond. In high school he was the best anyone he knew had ever seen. At IMG Academy he's just another top tier talent. He's going to be pushed. He's going to have to work. He can't expect star treatment. Now, I wasn't there. It could have been a perfectly innocent reason. But given that Vanderbilt changed their mind about him too, it raises a pretty strong character flag to me. I don't care about weed, and from a strictly on-field perspective I don't even care about the violence/felonies/sociopath factor. But I do care if he's a diva who's coasting on talent.

In some ways Groome is that anti-Benintendi. Both great high school players. One has the physical makeup you expect of a great major leaguer but a questionable mental makeup. The other has the mental makeup but a questionable physical makeup (read: he's a little short to be a stormtrooper). I love the gamble on Benintendi - how couldn't you after Pedroia and Betts? But I'm not in love with Groome. Even if we get the outcome we're all hoping for, it doesn't seem like good process to me.

 

[Snodgrass'Muff]

No. I think he's more of an Animal fan.

 

[Savin Hillbilly]

I doubt this is true. They didnt start taking guys who were under slot until the 7th round. Almost all of these guys are best player available in their view.

Apologies if you're an insider and I'm the only one on SoSH who doesn't know it, but the bolded bit raised my eyebrows. Not saying it couldn't be true--it could very well be--but I'm curious how you know it.

 

[Pilgrim]

Apologies if you're an insider and I'm the only one on SoSH who doesn't know it, but the bolded bit raised my eyebrows. Not saying it couldn't be true--it could very well be--but I'm curious how you know it.

Well, best available at slot. I'm sure theres a guy at every pick that they like but cant afford.

Heres the point that I was trying to make : After they drafted Groome, there was reason to worry that they'd have to cut deals in the early rounds. But it looks like those guys are all normal draft picks.

 

[Plympton91]

Vandy dropping their scholarship combined with his stated disdain for school may be an academic eligibility issue (I was valedictorian and also would have dissed the college bullshit and signed any pro contract put in front of me, so not saying he couldn't also be a good student). If he's going to be ineligible as a freshman, not much sense wasting a scholarship on him since he's gone as a junior anyway. Even more innocuously, Vandy could have seen the writing on the wall and pulled the scholarship because they had someone who was using it as more than negotiating leverage.

 

[burstnbloom]

And I heard that surfer dude pulled a knife on Mr. Hand......

Un-named sources of third hand information that is incredibly vague. Definitely more important than taking the potential #1 pick in the 12th slot.

I can't tell if you stopped reading after the first sentence of my post or if you agree with me. The makeup questions do not concern me, if they weren't there, he'd be property of the Reds.

 

[reggiecleveland]

If the Yankees had drafted this guy some of the same people defending the pick would be all over the makeup issues.

Suffice to say the concerns are not completely fabricated, or else somebody else drafts him.

 

[C4CRVT]

How does he feel about laptop computers?

Seems like this could be too good to be true. Maybe it's just good fortune that he fell to us and that the sox are the one team for which "signability" is slightly less of an issue. I'm feeling very cautiously optimistic and can't wait to see how it all plays out.

 

[Drek717]

But given that Vanderbilt changed their mind about him too, it raises a pretty strong character flag to me.

Vandy dropping their scholarship combined with his stated disdain for school may be an academic eligibility issue (I was valedictorian and also would have dissed the college bullshit and signed any pro contract put in front of me, so not saying he couldn't also be a good student). If he's going to be ineligible as a freshman, not much sense wasting a scholarship on him since he's gone as a junior anyway. Even more innocuously, Vandy could have seen the writing on the wall and pulled the scholarship because they had someone who was using it as more than negotiating leverage.

Where are you both getting that Vanderbilt dropped him? Everything I've seen is the other way around, he dropped his commitment to go to junior college for greater draft leverage.

 

[smastroyin]

A few things. First, after the first round pick it probably isn't DD's draft anymore. There is a scouting department that takes over pretty quickly. Second, I understand that is your fear but don't know where it's coming from. So far the Red Sox have taken a lot of college players, but the names he has drafted have been very solid picks (Even the senior signs have been pretty good ones). No team is ever going to take BA's top 500 list and just pick the person at the top each time, but nothing about the draft so far seems as though they have held back from taking someone who they feel is the best player available at that pick.

I'm just going to disagree on Chatam. I mean I hope I'm wrong and the Sox know something I don't or see something in him that I don't. But I have a hard time believing he was top of the board at 51, unless you've moved on the to the "almost completely certain to sign for under slot" board. I'll be surprised and disappointed if he signs for slot or more. For one, he's just not a great prospect, for two, pulling a guess out of my ass I'd say there was a greater than 50% shot he'd be around at 88 if you liked him that much.

The thing with Chatam is that he doesn't have typical underdog type stuff to point to. He's not "short" like Pedroia or Betts. He doesn't have a skill that isn't valued highly like Youkilis. He wasn't beset by an injury filled year like JBJ. He's a pretty straightforward looking player who had good looking numbers in a tiny conference and school. And I'm crediting the Sox for thinking he'll be able to stay at SS, which most scouts think he won't be able to do. Even understanding the limit of money they can save with the 2nd round pick, if it wasn't at least partially motivated by the fact that they need to pay Groome then it seems like a really big stretch of a pick.

 

[mauf]

I'm just going to disagree on Chatam. I mean I hope I'm wrong and the Sox know something I don't or see something in him that I don't. But I have a hard time believing he was top of the board at 51, unless you've moved on the to the "almost completely certain to sign for under slot" board. I'll be surprised and disappointed if he signs for slot or more. For one, he's just not a great prospect, for two, pulling a guess out of my ass I'd say there was a greater than 50% shot he'd be around at 88 if you liked him that much.

See, this is exactly my concern. In addition to the even-greater-than-average risk that Groome will amount to nothing, it seems we have reduced our odds of striking gold on later picks to ensure we're able to meet Groome's financial demands. (I'll gladly stand corrected if DD takes a hard line on Groome and uses the savings on 51 in the later rounds to go over slot on guys who may have slid due to signability concerns.)

I'm aware that smas's assessment isn't the consensus here, of course.

 

[Savin Hillbilly]

Where are you both getting that Vanderbilt dropped him?

From the Mastrodonato article linked to on the previous page:

By midsummer, Vanderbilt was no longer interested in having Groome attend, according to a source familiar with the situation. It wasn’t because of his talent, but a bigger issue.

That was the part that worried me. You wouldn't expect a major college program to be scared off by a little beer pong or soaping the principal's windshield. Seems like it must have been something non-trivial from their point of view, presumably something with the potential for bad press or legal repercussions.

The Law quote about felonies etc. was somewhat reassuring. Maybe we're talking Buchholz-level stuff here: petty theft, vandalism, etc.

 

[smastroyin]

BTW, because I don't want to answer another round of the same questions. Unlike mauf I am content with taking the risk on Groome and then playing it safe the rest of the draft. Some of the play it safe guys might work out in building depth or even be a surprise climber (like, say, Carlos Asuaje) that fills out a trade for you. But at the end of the day, if Groome is a top 30 starter for any of his pre-FA years and the Sox get literally nothing else out of the draft, it will still be a great draft class.

 

[LuckyBen]

That was the part that worried me. You wouldn't expect a major college program to be scared off by a little beer pong or soaping the principal's windshield. Seems like it must have been something non-trivial from their point of view, presumably something with the potential for bad press or legal repercussions.

The Law quote about felonies etc. was somewhat reassuring. Maybe we're talking Buchholz-level stuff here: petty theft, vandalism, etc.

I thought Vandy recruits were notoriously difficult to sign? Vandy probably read the writing on the wall and knew they weren't keeping him. I still remember UT getting burned by recruiting Bell,Swihart, and later Ball, ect.