While writing about Johns Sickels yesterday, my mind immediately wandered to Cito Culver. He’s about as unexciting, while still a solid prospect, as a #1 pick can be. When Dante Bichette Jr. was picked, he was criticized as being a pick in Culver’s vein – unexciting and low-ceiling. Unlike Culver, Bichette pretty much quashed those fears right out of the gate.
I think that Cito Culver is a better prospect than people realize. To quote Sickels, and impartial observer:
13) Cito Culver, SS, Grade C+: Good defensive reports, still very raw with the bat but was younger than most of his competition. Grade will rise when/if he makes offensive progress.
Unlike most prospects, those good defensive reports are the most important thing we can hear right now. In a world where the average MLB shortstop hits .263/.317/.380, a player who can barely play shortstop with little hitting talent like Eduardo Nunez becomes an important asset. From pretty much his first few days as a Yankee, we’ve heard that Cito Culver has actually been quite good at the position. He’s no Ramiro Pena out there, but signs point to Culver evolving into an above-average defensive shortstop, if not better.
This all comes at a very young age and at a low level of experience. Culver was pretty close to the youngest possible draftee in the 2010 draft class. He turned 18 on August 26, 2010, and just turned 19 this past August. In contrast, his fellow 2010 draftee Mason Williams turned 20 years old in the same month. That’s a big year for a young, growing athlete. On top of that, Culver is from upstate New York. Unlike your typical American prospect out of Southern California or the old confederacy, Culver was not able to play year-round baseball in high school. He wasn’t able to compete in as many top-shelf showcases against the best players in the country. He didn’t play every day in his high school league against a group of future top college stars and the occasional future MLB pitcher. And finally, he didn’t play with the quality of coaching that most young first round picks can expect these days.
Put that all together, and I think you have to give Culver a pass on hitting .251/.323/.334 in his first 125 professional games. Conversely, I think you also have to given him credit for having a true knack for defense despite relative inexperience. Cito Culver doesn’t exhibit the tools to go out there and be Troy Tulowitzki, but guys like David Eckstein, John McDonald, Adam Everett and even Omar Vizquel have long and productive MLB careers. There’s not a huge difference between a journeyman like Ramiro Pena and a guy like Eckstein.
Were the Yankees wrong to pick Culver with the 32nd overall pick of the 2010 draft? I think they are probably pretty happy with what they got at this point. It’s easy to point to someone drafted soon after Culver and use hindsight to say the Yankees should have selected that other prospect. But Culver has turned out pretty much as expected: an interesting project who just might turn into a MLB shortstop. Culver signed quickly and cheaply, allowing the Yankees to negotiate with and eventually sign Mason Williams and Angelo Gumbs.
Bottom line: don’t dismiss Cito Culver. I think he could surprise us quite a bit in his first bout in full-season ball.
If you enjoyed this article, please consider sharing it!
4 Responses to How Good is Cito Culver?
Leave a Reply
TIQ IQ
The issue with Culver is not whether or not you’re happy with his performance. It’s whether or not you could have reasonably gotten him later. If no one but the Yankees had him that high, and you could have picked him later, that would give you the ability to pick someone (anyone) who was viewed by everyone as a #1 talent. Don’t overpay (or overpick).
I think that’s a bad way to look at it. It only takes 1 team between picks to lose a player to another team. The Yankees had a good report on him, and they had no way to know if another team did.
I think the better way to think about the draft is as a whole. Given their draft position, the Yankees walked away with Mason Williams, Cito Culver, Angelo Gumbs, Rob Segedin, Tyler Austin, Thomas Kahnle, Ben Gamel, Dan Burawa, Gabe Encinas, Chase Whitley, Zach Nuding, Evan Rutckyj, and Taylor Morton.
That’s a pretty good group. It’s probably better than their 2009 draft by a bit, and definitely miles better than 2008. 2007 and 2006 looked much better at similar points, but those were damn good years.
Not saying your hollistic approach is incorrect but think of how much better that draft would look with Nick Castellanos…
None of us have any idea if Culver (or Castellanos) will pan out but I’d always rather try to aim a little higher, especially in the first round.
When you have a prospect that you’ve been eyeing for several years, you don’t take the chance on letting him slip to someone else. The Yankees had some great reports on Culver from former players that have played the SS position. Players know players. I will go out on a limb and say that Culver is a no-brainer MLB SS with a chance to be a perennial all-star with a chance at 3000 hits. This kid is the 3rd youngest kid in the whole draft. The younger the kid, the higher the success rate. He’s from Upstate NY, his learning curve is at least 18 months behind everyone else in pro ball. Lastly, he won a championship already. In Yankee Land, THAT MATTERS!!!