Quinn from Samford would have been pretty exciting at 80, and there were a couple intriguing bats still there at the next pick. There are lots of nice players drafted in the 3rd round every year, not like it's some dead zone of talent. And even after that, there is usually at least one or two really nice bats drafted in the 4-10 rounds every year (see Mookie Betts, Goldschmidt, Rizzo, etc).Originally Posted by Enscheff
This sums up my feelings pretty well. Our last five picks were seniors with very limited upside who should sign for pennies. Are we really using that much money on three high school pitchers?
What upside is there besides Anderson, Muller and Wentz? A high school pitcher in the fourth round who's already pinned as a reliever? A third rounder credibility for his pitchability? What else is there to be excited about besides the three HS arms, which just so happen to be incredibly risky?
Just as a thought, no idea if I'm right, but there is still a chance we could make a splash for one of those big hard-sign names like Mendoza or Horn in 11-15. Throw some extra money at them, see if they sign. Not saying it's likely or anything like that, just that it's a possibility.
Thats exactly what happens. Teams take fliers on players considered to be a hard sign.
"Donald Trump will serve a second term as president of the United States.
It’s over."
Little Thethe Nov 19, 2020.
Rico those numbers are insane. I'd start him as a pitcher and if it doesn't pan out I'd hand him a bat.
No one calls and pick a future MVP or future ace. However, when a young guy has being an ace as a realistic ceiling, you hear them people say that's his ceiling.
With Anderson, people rave about his makeup, pitching knowledge, and advanced approach. They say his stuff is above average but nowhere do you hear people saying he's overpowering.
I see his his realistic ceiling as a number 2. He's not going to be an ace simply through normal development. He's gonna need to take a leap forward of the type you can't predict.
The comp people use is Mike Mussina. Mussina was a very good, very consistent pitcher for a very long time. He had some ace level years sprinkled in but mostly he was a solid, dependable number 2 starter.
While it's beyond silly to predict this kid becoming a 240 game winner, a Mussina type pitcher is probably a realistic ceiling. A consistent producer who gives an ERA around 3.50 and at his peak does a bit better than that.
Maybe the Braves have enough $ to do something in the 11th round?
I am assuming the run on seniors is to open up money for the next day. Our 2, 3 and 4 picks aren't that special to command crazy over slot deals. Anderson should save us enough by himself.
I hope we can throw stupid over slot money at an upside bat
Call him an "Ace", a "dependable number 2 starter", whatever you want - Mussina's a borderline (and deserving IMO) Hall Of Famer. If any of the young Pitchers turn into Mike Mussina, everyone should be thrilled beyond belief.
Has there EVER been a statement and question a certain someone should absolutely never have made and asked publicly more than...
Kinda pathetic to see yourself as a message board knight in shining armor. How impotent does someone have to be in real life to resort to playing hero on a message board?
bravos4evr (06-11-2016), GovClintonTyree (06-11-2016)
I usually don't respond much on here. Mostly just lurk and enjoy the great work Rico does on the minors threads and any new info that pops up. I realize there's a schism here between people who think the organization can't do any wrong, and those that love to hate on them with each side pointing fingers at the other as having their heads shoved somewhere. Eerily similar to our current political climate. The organization has made some good moves and some bad ones. I'd venture to say they've been slightly more good than bad in this rebuild.
With that said, some of the complaints on this thread about the draft seem a little unsound. That's not to say that I completely agree with the direction of taking pitching with the first three picks. I think anyone can look at the system from the bottom through the top and see that hitting is an area of need. However, regardless of what I want them to take, I trust that the scouts have gathered enough information on all of the players and have them rated according to how they view their talent/make-up.
People have complained that a bat should have been taken. Bridges stated that bats would have been taken had they fallen alluding to Senzel at 3 and others for 40/44. Those bats didn't fall, so we went with our highest rated players which happened to be pitchers for the first three picks.
People say we settled for Anderson to go under slot instead of getting someone with better upside. This isn't true in the eyes of the Braves. It has been indicated by multiple sources that the Braves valued Anderson as their top pitching target. If you value multiple guys equally, it does make sense to take the guy who will cost less to allow for more flexibility with future picks.
Anderson's ceiling is a MOR starter and thus not worth the top 3 pick. I have seen some of the reports that say this about Anderson, and others that say he has even higher upside. Keith Law even had him at the 7th best prospect on his last big board. You can take this two ways, either Anderson's upside is dependent on the person scouting him (this is very possible and obviously likely for anyone), or the depth of talent in this draft is very shallow. Ultimately his potential was viewed to be pretty valuable by Atlanta and their scouts which is really all that matters. They put together a board, they stuck to it, and they got the guy they valued the most.
Touching on the idea of the depth of talent in the draft, if the draft is full of a number of players who have similar ratings, outcomes, and upsides, doesn't it make sense to take as many of those players as you can in the hopes of hitting on one or all of them instead of placing all your eggs in one basket? This isn't an unusual stance. This same line of thinking has shown to work in the NFL draft. While this may be comparing apples to oranges. I believe Barnwell for ESPN even had an article on it which basically states it works out better to trade down in the draft, acquiring more picks thus allowing yourself more opportunity to hit on players. Washington is a prime example of this. They traded up for RG3 and this didn't pan out. Had they kept their picks, and just drafted Cousins in the later rounds, they'd be in a much better state personnel wise than they are right now. Yes, I know that you can't really trade up or down in the MLB draft, but the Braves virtually did the same thing based off the the pool of slot money. They spread the money over 3 top 25 prospects, instead of one top 5, and two at 50 and below.
Finally, the day 2 picks have no upside, why couldn't we take a shot at some of these other prospects? This is two fold. First, we have a ton of the pool money going towards the first 3 picks, who we need to sign to make this draft as good as it can be. Otherwise it's a waste. To be certain this happens, you have to take guys who are at or below slot with some picks and this is what a lot of those picks are. They're easy signs who won't hinder the ability to sign the prized draftees. Correct me if I'm wrong, but not signing one of these picks, removes that picks money allotment from the overall pool, which would make a smaller pool and that much harder to sign the earlier more valuable picks. These picks are as high upside as possible without jeopardizing the pool and money needed to sign the top draft picks. Also, I believe rico posted something last year that showed the type of players we draft between certain rounds. I believe the second day picks are usually seniors, with picks after round 10 going for more higher upside shot in the dark type of players.
Anyway, that's my semi rant view on things. Sorry for the length. Take it for what it's worth while I go back to lurking.
50PoundHead (06-10-2016), BoneThrower (06-11-2016), bravos4evr (06-11-2016), clvclv (06-11-2016), drewdat (06-10-2016), GovClintonTyree (06-11-2016), jimsnores (06-10-2016), NYCBrave (06-10-2016), Preacher (06-14-2016), rico43 (06-11-2016), The Chosen One (06-10-2016), tomahawkchop (06-11-2016)
I think a lot of the complainers (I'm one of them) who wanted Lewis or a bat just felt we had followed the Lewis hype for many months and that Lewis was the fairy tale pick. Local kid, who's had plenty of rave reviews, especially after one of the biggest fan favorites in Jason Heyward was traded away. He apparently had the best makeup and work ethic in the draft, which was something the "Braves Way" was always big on was character guys with professionalism.
It was a little disappointing to see Anderson get picked, especially since we've been stockpiling on pitching for 2 years now.
I personally wanted a bat, and then they could draft pitchers the rest of the way for all I care.
We've been stockpiling money for drafts. I really hope that this excessive financial frugality doesn't carry into the International Draft. Everyone says we're gonna splurge on that. At a minimum we should be getting Maitan and another blue chipper
Forever Fredi
Carolina Kid, to save bytes, I'll just respond and not re-print your post. I agree with pretty much everything you've said. I think a lot of folks got sticky pants over Kyle Lewis, but the Braves had him in for a workout and didn't like what they saw. The fact that he slid to #11 and the Great Almighty of Baseball himself (one Mr. Beane) passed on him should say something. As for Pint or Groome, in a perfect world, hell yeah. But this isn't a perfect world. There were some other bats the Braves probably thought would be there (probably Benson and Kieboom), but that is the risk when you hope guys slide. Wentz and Muller are pretty good consolation prizes. My guess is they may have wanted Logan Ice, but he went a few picks before Cumberland and Cumberland looks like he can stick (it's just a matter if he can stick at C defensively).
I'm guessing they will take a flyer on a fairly big name at some point tomorrow and pool any savings from the first 10 rounds and toss it at him. Maybe it works and maybe it doesn't.
I think we would've taken Chris Okey instead of Muller had the Reds not jumped on him. Just seems like a Braves kind of player
Don't know that much about Okey, but I'm sure there were some bats they liked that somehow didn't materialize and he might have been one of them.
Is there anywhere to see who the top ranked I drafted guys are?
Only thing i dont like about taking pitching is, there isnt much hitting to follow. It's one of the reasons i wanted Ray/Lewis.
Once Albies/Swanson jump to the majors whenever in 2017 pretty much every top 20-25 prospect is a pitcher minus 3 or 4 players. Thats concerning. Although international market signings could help that out.
Last edited by Heyward; 06-10-2016 at 11:55 PM.
Eight of MLB.com's top 100 prospects are still on their board. But its Horn (34) and Mendoza (36) and jumps all the way to Cooper Johnson (68)
jpx7 (06-11-2016)
Per Baseball Prospectus:
"I would be surprised by this, if I hadn't heard this for a while. That being said, this is not a top-three pick for me. He has a plus fastball and shows an above-average slider, and he will show a decent change as well. I don't think he has a ton of upside, however, and they pass on guys like Groome, Pint and Ray who do. Again, this is a money saver, but again, you could have taken a better player and saved. Huh."
I'm excited about Maitan ��
My biggest gripe is the lack of high upside bats after our first 4 picks. We instead took a reliever at 80 and another potential high upside arm in round 4. Before our run on seniors, I would have liked to get a couple high upside hitters like Quinn. Alas, it didn't happen. We should have saved a bit of money yesterday, so I hope to see a couple risky signs with upside today.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
