http://www.fueledbysports.com/2017-mlb-mock-draft/
No obvious #1 here. Some think Schwarz could be it.
Do we take the best player available or continue to value town it?
Printable View
http://www.fueledbysports.com/2017-mlb-mock-draft/
No obvious #1 here. Some think Schwarz could be it.
Do we take the best player available or continue to value town it?
Wasn't expecting this until at least next May, but if there's nobody head and shoulders "best player," then they should identify need. This selection will also speak to current status of scouting and analytics. Avery and Chipper were the only high end picks to have a very successful careers from the last run of top picks. The others were Tyler Houston, Derek Lilliquist and Mike Kelly, who were a very mixed bag.
You can practically ignore any mock draft being done at this time of year. The people who actually have some idea of what they're talking about won't put one out until late next spring and even then will caution it's way too early.
If we have the #1 pick then they better go BPA instead of going the value route.
Hunter Greene.
"On the first day of the event, shortstop/right-handed pitcher Hunter Greene (Notre Dame High School, in Sherman Oaks, Calif.) put his two-way talent on display and made a case for himself as the best player in the field. Scouts already know Greene well, having seen him play last summer as the youngest member of USA Baseball's 18U National Team, which featured 2016 first-round picks Mickey Moniak, Ian Anderson, Will Benson, Forrest Whitley and Blake Rutherford. He also generated buzz within the scouting community earlier this week when he pitched in front of Major League Scouting Bureau evaluators in California and reached 97 mph with his fastball.
Greene, a UCLA commit, has the long, lean and projectable build that scouts look for at a listed 6-foot-4, 197 pounds. Whether he's pitching or playing the field, he plays the game effortlessly with fast-twitch athleticism and impressive polish in all phases. In game action, he combines strength with controlled aggression, and there's an explosive element to everything he does that sets him apart from his peers.
In his one-inning stint on Wednesday, Greene ran his heater up to 95 mph and settled into the 92-94 range. There's a quick tempo to his simple motion, as he takes a pretty clean arm circle into a three-quarters slot with a gentle plant-foot landing. He creates solid angle on his fastball, which features riding life that induced an awkward swing from a right-handed hitter for the second of his two strikeouts. He also showed the makings of an above-average slider that reaches the low-80s with sharp bite and tilt at its best, taking a flatter trajectory when it's not. The size, stuff and pitchability give him a starter's profile at the next level, and his physical projection portends improvement as he adds strength and arm speed.
At the plate, Greene combines a natural, fluid swing with an advanced feel to hit. He showed very good bat speed and extension in batting practice, producing loud echoes off the barrel as he drove a handful of balls over the fence. With athletic movements in the box and exceptional bat control, he has a line-drive swing plane geared for both contact and power. He's a smooth defender at shortstop with solid hands and loose, coordinated actions, moving laterally with easy strides. He has a real chance to stay at the position, but should his physical maturation sap too much of his range, he has the defensive tools to become a well above-average defender at third base.
Greene -- who will still be 17 years old by the time next year's draft rolls around -- is one of the better two-way prospects in recent memory. There's a legitimate debate in the scouting community as to where he should play, and settling that debate will be difficult if he performs as he's expected to on both sides of the ball next spring. Regardless, he has the look of a potential top 10 pick at this very early juncture, offering all-star upside at whatever position his selecting team decides to develop him."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btYBWlO7tR4
So, not only is Greene a hit or miss pick, you could hit or miss at what position you play him. UCLA commitment likely means there are no bargains to be had here.
Exactly right mqt, just look at last years draft for prime example. Nobody had Moniack in their Top 10 early, let alone the first pick and very few if any had Senzel and Anderson in early top 10ish rankings.Quote:
Originally Posted by mqt
To be fair, I'd imagine over the next 10 months it will become more and more apparent where you play him at and if he has what it takes to be a 1-1 guy. From everything I've seen so far, he'll need to add a lot of speed to his game to stick at SS or even in the IF at all. If he shows to be either a corner OF or a SP, I think the decision becomes a lot easier unless the bat can't be ignored.Quote:
Originally Posted by rico43
Echoing [MENTION=148]Hudson2[/MENTION], I hope the Braves aren't bargain-hunting if they do end up with the top overall pick.Quote:
Originally Posted by rico43
Looking back at the Anderson pick I don't mind so much bc there were questions with everybody in the draft and we got Wentz and Muller with the saved money. But with the #1 pick I don't wanna take that chance bc this coming draft looks to be a ton better.Quote:
Originally Posted by jpx7
It's also pretty hard to find someone that will require the full slot at number 1. Almost any prospect you pick will represent some form of savings.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hudson2
Pretty sure everybody is a hit or miss pick. I hope we take the BPA even if there are no bargains.Quote:
Originally Posted by rico43
I'm a Gator, but count me out on Schwarz. He's not really a catcher, and he was a mess for most of his sophomre season, unable to catch up to any sort of fastball. He'll have a chance to re-coup some of his losses in 2017, but barring a truly monstrous year, I don't see him as a realistic candidate for 1/1.
Being a Gator fan, what is your assessment of Faedo?Quote:
Originally Posted by MadduxFanII
We really didn't get Wentz and Muller with the saved money though, we could have easily just signed seniors instead of Harrington and Walker and signed whoever we wanted at #1 for 5 mil or so. The amount of money we saved with Anderson went more to paying big overslot deals to Cumberland and Wilson anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hudson2
You don't feel the Schwarz?Quote:
Originally Posted by MadduxFanII
Stud. Total stud. The stuff is maybe not quite sharp enough to justify the #1 overall pick (the slider doesn't bite consistently, and the fastball often sits closer to 90 than to 95), but he'll be a top 10 guy easy- he's got the stuff, the build and the mentality to justify it.Quote:
Originally Posted by blueagleace1
His 2017 will be The Search For More Money.Quote:
Originally Posted by weso1
Sounds like his mlb career will be anywhere from suck to blow.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadduxFanII
I'd argue almost the exact opposite personally. Assuming we're picking first and no one significantly separates themselves from the pack, I wouldn't have any problem following the same strategy once again.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hudson2
The 2017 draft is expected to be better - as a whole. If someone doesn't step forward and show that they're the slam-dunk #1 pick and you're in a position to add an EVEN BETTER trio than Anderson, Wentz, and Muller, you'd be nuts for not taking advantage of that opportunity.
It's far too early to even think about who you might target if you're picking first at this point, and doing so earlier than late next spring is pretty pointless IMO.
It's rare for a first overall pick to approach anything close to slot, so you can go with the trio approach (assuming we pick up another early draft pick) and still go BPA with the first pick.Quote:
Originally Posted by clvclv
This served the Astros well when they made Correa the No. 1 pick, did it not?Quote:
Originally Posted by clvclv
I've seen several people allude to this, especially with UCLA commits, and I'm confused as to why that would be the case. You're probably going to save slot money on anybody at #1. That picks usually signs for at least $2 million under slot.Quote:
Originally Posted by rico43
Yes. This year #1 was 9+ million. You can get BPA for 5-7 million. Plus if they get another early pick in bonus rounds. Draft could be better than this years.Quote:
Originally Posted by smootness
It sounds crazy considering how bad we are/have been...... but the Twins are not giving up on that #1 overall pick.
this honestly could make me not become a fan if they go value route instead of BPAQuote:
Originally Posted by Hudson2
There isnt always a clear cut #1 bpa.... if theres 4 or 5 guys lumped together, you might as well take the one that saves the most money.Quote:
Originally Posted by goldfly
Who was the absolute stud this year that you had to take #1?
Again, BPA at #1 will almost always be a value pick as well. It's another advantage of picking #1.Quote:
Originally Posted by goldfly
Looking back at it; is anyone really upset that the Braves took an underslot guy at #3 in Ian Anderson? Those savings helped us sign the group of Wilson/Cumberland/Wentz/Harrington/Muller.
Anderson, Wentz, Muller and Wilson have been superb. Harrington has been pretty good as well.
Really the only disappointment in that group is Cumberland, and even in his season you can see some of the power manifest with 11 2Bs and 3 HRs.
My point is everybody already wants to say the "Braves have to avoid an underslot guy at 1-1" but we just saw that same strategy seem to work pretty well..... and if there isn't a generational guy at the top of the draft I would hope the Braves explore all options to maximize their entire draft next year. Maybe that means finding another Ian Anderson, saving $3 million on his deal and locking up two other first round talents --- that's not a bad way to go.
The only real disappointment I had was taking Harrington over Heath Quinn (and Quinn hitting extremely well for the Giants so far makes me more irritated with our reach for Harrington). I'd have preferred Groome or Lewis versus Anderson (and given up Harrington and Walker to get them instead), but hard to quibble too much there with all the smoke about Groome have makeup issues and the Braves giving Lewis the tryout right before the draft and deciding no.Quote:
Originally Posted by Preacher
I don't think there was a clear cut answer at #3, so it's not a huge deal either way. But we really didn't need to go underslot at #3 to sign Wentz and Muller either.
Sure, but it wasn't just about Wentz/Muller -- it was also Wilson/Harrington/Cumberland that they wanted and gave overslot deals with.Quote:
Originally Posted by auyushu
Agree with your other point, there's wasn't a clear-cut pick at #3, so the strategy did make some sense in that regard --- which brings us to next year.... what if its similar to this year's draft? No clear-cut #1, just a muddled top-6, it would make sense to balance the bonus demands with the talent. People have already seemingly decided that the Braves have to take BPA at 1-1, I think we need to see how the board shakes out first.
We should certainly see what happens before deciding what's the best strategy. I've seen Law and a number of other people say that this draft will be much stronger for the top part of the first round while this last draft strength was in the 10-25 area. So I have higher aspirations for a more clear cut BPA this year.Quote:
Originally Posted by Preacher
Schwartz's star has fallen. Hunter Greene could become a generational prospect of he develops more next year. Let's just suck one more year and also get Beer
1. Atlanta 46-80 .365
2. Minnesota 49-76 .392
3. Arizona 52-74 .413
4. Los Angeles 52-73 .416
We're just about guaranteed a top 2 pick, and it's going to be tough for the Twins to catch us.
I don't think taking a catcher that high is very smart. If he's that good of a hitting catcher odds are he'll be moved off of catcher, where a lot of his value lies. A catcher in the 2nd or 3rd makes more sense. IMO
How good is next year's draft crop? The only thing I have seen is that almost everyone agrees it is better than last year's crop. I guess we really won't know until closer to next year's draft but I think there already appears to be more potential superstars in this class than this past one.