• Cito Culver & Dante Bichette

    Posted by on June 26th, 2013 · Comments (10)

    They put the “dog” in River Dogs…

    Age G PA R H HR RBI BB SO BA OBP SLG
    Dante Bichette 20 69 302 22 55 4 37 26 73 .204 .285 .289
    Cito Culver 20 62 283 36 52 6 19 33 83 .211 .302 .332
    Provided by Baseball-Reference.com: View Original Table
    Generated 6/26/2013.

    .
    And, yes, Culver was drafted by the New York Yankees in the 1st round (32nd) of the 2010 MLB June Amateur Draft. And, Bichette was drafted by the New York Yankees in the 1st round (51st) of the 2011 MLB June Amateur Draft.

    Nice work, Brian Cashman.

    Comments on Cito Culver & Dante Bichette

    1. Scout
      June 26th, 2013 | 11:44 am

      You have to include Damon Oppenheimer, the ace director of U.S. amateur scouting. I still recall his lame justification for picking Culver in round one: he claimed another team’s head scout said they would have picked Culver before the Yankees next turn (which was in the third or fourth round that year). When the Yankees finally wise up and dump Damon, let’s hope the unnamed other scouting head isn’t next in line for the job.

    2. Scout
      June 26th, 2013 | 11:47 am

      P.S. Mentioning Cito Culver to me is like waving a red flag in front of a bull.

    3. June 26th, 2013 | 2:34 pm

      Scout wrote:

      When the Yankees finally wise up and dump Damon, let’s hope the unnamed other scouting head isn’t next in line for the job.

      Ditto

    4. Corey
      June 26th, 2013 | 5:30 pm

      Now this is a legitimate Cashman bash. Perhaps he shows too much loyalty with his head scouts because it has been a long time since 2006.

    5. MJ Recanati
      June 26th, 2013 | 5:56 pm

      Corey wrote:

      Now this is a legitimate Cashman bash. Perhaps he shows too much loyalty with his head scouts because it has been a long time since 2006.

      Or, perhaps, it’s not a scouting issue but an issue of becoming overly cautious after Cole didn’t sign and Brackman imploded. He took two guys that he knew would sign and whose profiles suggested that their gloves would advance them through the lower levels of the minors.

    6. Scout
      June 26th, 2013 | 7:29 pm

      MJ Recanati wrote:

      Or, perhaps, it’s not a scouting issue but an issue of becoming overly cautious after Cole didn’t sign and Brackman imploded.

      I think the cautious move would have been to pick the most highly rated prospect still on the board of most of the scouting services, e.g., Nick Castelanos instead of Culver. The Culver picks suggests that Oppenheimer was trying to prove he was a scouting genius, able to find talent “by going where no man has gone before.” A regular James T. Kirk, that Oppenheimer.

    7. June 26th, 2013 | 8:03 pm

      Scout wrote:

      The Culver picks suggests that Oppenheimer was trying to prove he was a scouting genius, able to find talent “by going where no man has gone before.”

      Yup. I agree

    8. MJ Recanati
      June 27th, 2013 | 8:37 am

      Scout wrote:

      I think the cautious move would have been to pick the most highly rated prospect still on the board of most of the scouting services, e.g., Nick Castelanos instead of Culver.

      Though I agree with you that the Yanks should’ve taken Castellanos over Culver, I don’t agree with you about teams simply following the draft boards of scouting services or the general consensus of outsiders. Unlike the NFL or NBA drafts, where the stratification of talent is usually very, very clear at the top, baseball’s amateur draft is far less linear (and I say this knowing full well that you know that already).

    9. Raf
      June 27th, 2013 | 9:22 am

      Steve L. wrote:

      Scout wrote:
      The Culver picks suggests that Oppenheimer was trying to prove he was a scouting genius, able to find talent “by going where no man has gone before.”
      Yup. I agree

      The Culver pick makes even less sense in that context. If he wasn’t heavily scouted or otherwise off the radar, then he would’ve or should’ve been around in the later rounds.

      Oppenheimer’s excuse doesn’t hold water either.

    10. MJ Recanati
      June 27th, 2013 | 9:50 am

      @ Scout:
      @ Raf:
      I really think it’s just a case of a player they scouted heavily and loved his makeup and his willingness/eagerness to sign quickly and for slot (or less).

      As I said earlier in the thread, they wanted to take all the risk out of the pick because they got gunshy after the previous two first round draft pick experiences.

    Leave a reply

    You must be logged in to post a comment.