2015 DRAFT SIGNING THREAD

[chop2chip]

I believe I saw that the Braves drafts from 2010 - 2014 produced the second most ML players in all of baseball.

That has to be one of the most misleading ways to evaluate draft success.

[sturg33]

That has to be one of the most misleading ways to evaluate draft success.

I'm not sure I made any evaluation on it, but hopefully we will be able to continue producing ML talent through our drafts.

We better - now that that we will be having more first round picks (which we didn't have as many, or as high, in the last 5 years)

[chop2chip]

I'm not sure I made any evaluation on it, but hopefully we will be able to continue producing ML talent through our drafts.

We better - now that that we will be having more first round picks (which we didn't have as many, or as high, in the last 5 years)

If you weren't making an evaluation then you were trying to make a point regarding Wren which is semantics.

We have done this dance before, so I'm confused why you belabor this point. Looking at the actual players drafted during Wren/DeMacio's regime and the quality of players drafted the last five years is suspect at best.

[sturg33]

If you weren't making an evaluation then you were trying to make a point regarding Wren which is semantics.

We have done this dance before, so I'm confused by you belabor this point. Looking at the actual players drafted during Wren/DeMacio's regime and the quality of players drafted the last five years is suspect at best.

LOL... it's pretty sad that we've gotten to the point where anything mentioned about the previous regime has to be blasted to smithereens.

[chop2chip]

LOL... it's pretty sad that we've gotten to the point where anything mentioned about the previous regime has to be blasted to smithereens.

So let me get this correct. You feel as if you have the right to question any move the current front office has made, but me questioning DeMacio (which has been done by draft pundits for years) is "LOL" worthy?

Not very fair sturg.

[sturg33]

So let me get this correct. You feel as if you have the right to question any move the current front office has made, but me questioning DeMacio (which has been done by draft pundits for years) is "LOL" worthy?

Not very fair sturg.

I simply quoted a draft stat which I thought was interesting in the draft thread.

[chop2chip]

I simply quoted a draft stat which I thought was interesting in the draft thread.

Your motives are as transparent as The Frankster's white hair.

[sturg33]

Your motives are as transparent as The Frankster's white hair.

OK my bad...

SCREW FRANK WREN AND HIS DRAFTS!

[chop2chip]

OK my bad...

SCREW FRANK WREN AND HIS DRAFTS!

I don't get it.

Am I not allowed to question DeMacio?

You are a bizarro thethe.

[smootness]

LOL... it's pretty sad that we've gotten to the point where anything mentioned about the previous regime has to be blasted to smithereens.

I don't think Wren and his staff should be blasted for producing that many major league players. However, the problem with simply relying on that stat is that Wren's strategy basically worked exactly the way he wanted it to - and even still, it resulted in our system being far less talented.

We got Simmons and Gattis in 2010, and Wood in 2012, and they are the best players we produced in that period. Wood was a great pick. Simmons was a great pick, even though we got a little lucky there (we thought we were drafting a JUCO reliever in the 2nd round) and Gattis is good while very flawed, though at that late in the draft, any production is great.

Outside of those three, here is the list of major league players - Tommy La Stella, Todd Cunningham, Cody Martin, Sean Gilmartin, Nick Ahmed, JR Graham, Joey Terdoslavich, Phil Gosselin, Chasen Shreve, Shae Simmons. That's very underwhelming, especially when you realize that most of these guys were taken in the first 5-6 rounds. The reason other teams have a lower % of major league graduates is because they know guys like this are there, but they're taking the higher ceiling guys that high in the draft. Because while there is a place for a Todd Cunningham or a Joey Terdoslavich on your team, they don't make a real difference in the overall product.

So while Wren can point to Phil Gosselin and say, 'Ha, major league player in the 5th round,' they also have to point to Sean Gilmartin in the 1st and realize that Gilmartin is basically all he was ever going to be, which is a major leaguer who is a non-factor.

Wren had some good finds late in drafts, and he did a good job of finding low-ceiling guys who could at least contribute in some way from rounds 6 on, which is all you're usually likely to find there. But he had the same strategy early in the draft for the most part as well, and that's what killed us.

The guys who haven't made the majors but are the top prospects from that period - Braxton Davidson, Jason Hursh, Victor Caratini (2nd round pick who we believed in so much, we traded him for a run-of-the-mill RP), Alec Grosser, Lucas Sims, Kyle Kubitza, Brandon Drury. That is not a good list. Davidson is far and away the best prospect of the bunch, and he's in A-ball.

The Marlins have a young catcher with a better future than Bethancourt in JT Realmuto. How did they end up with him? They took a high-ceiling kid out of HS late in the 3rd round. Who did we take 3 picks before that? Joe Leonard, a college guy without a real position who also wasn't that great a hitter. The Marlins took somebody who could potentially develop into something. We took a guy who, best-case scenario, would be a bench bat that could really only be used as a PH.

[sturg33]

I don't think Wren and his staff should be blasted for producing that many major league players. However, the problem with simply relying on that stat is that Wren's strategy basically worked exactly the way he wanted it to - and even still, it resulted in our system being far less talented.

We got Simmons and Gattis in 2010, and Wood in 2012, and they are the best players we produced in that period. Wood was a great pick. Simmons was a great pick, even though we got a little lucky there (we thought we were drafting a JUCO reliever in the 2nd round) and Gattis is good while very flawed, though at that late in the draft, any production is great.

Outside of those three, here is the list of major league players - Tommy La Stella, Todd Cunningham, Cody Martin, Sean Gilmartin, Nick Ahmed, JR Graham, Joey Terdoslavich, Phil Gosselin, Chasen Shreve, Shae Simmons. That's very underwhelming, especially when you realize that most of these guys were taken in the first 5-6 rounds. The reason other teams have a lower % of major league graduates is because they know guys like this are there, but they're taking the higher ceiling guys that high in the draft. Because while there is a place for a Todd Cunningham or a Joey Terdoslavich on your team, they don't make a real difference in the overall product.

So while Wren can point to Phil Gosselin and say, 'Ha, major league player in the 5th round,' they also have to point to Sean Gilmartin in the 1st and realize that Gilmartin is basically all he was ever going to be, which is a major leaguer who is a non-factor.

Wren had some good finds late in drafts, and he did a good job of finding low-ceiling guys who could at least contribute in some way from rounds 6 on, which is all you're usually likely to find there. But he had the same strategy early in the draft for the most part as well, and that's what killed us.

The guys who haven't made the majors but are the top prospects from that period - Braxton Davidson, Jason Hursh, Victor Caratini (2nd round pick who we believed in so much, we traded him for a run-of-the-mill RP), Alec Grosser, Lucas Sims, Kyle Kubitza, Brandon Drury. That is not a good list. Davidson is far and away the best prospect of the bunch, and he's in A-ball.

The Marlins have a young catcher with a better future than Bethancourt in JT Realmuto. How did they end up with him? They took a high-ceiling kid out of HS late in the 3rd round. Who did we take 3 picks before that? Joe Leonard, a college guy without a real position who also wasn't that great a hitter. The Marlins took somebody who could potentially develop into something. We took a guy who, best-case scenario, would be a bench bat that could really only be used as a PH.

I agree with all of this

[Horsehide Harry]

Smootness, agree with what you said. But, I will take it a step further and question this year's draft since I think we have gone too far in the other direction possibly, especially with the blinders focus on pitching.

The Allard pick is fine. He's a guy who could have gone first in the draft had things fallen differently and he not had medical concerns show up at the wrong time.

But, essentially every top five round pick after that looks like a reach as far as where the Braves took them. When you do that, you are essentially saying that you are signing them because of money (doesn't appear to be the case since all are signed at slot or above) or that you believe that your scouts are right and ALL of baseball are wrong. And, while there are certainly TIMES when you may have unique knowledge that the rest of baseball does not have, Those times are statistically few while 7 of the first 8 picks is certainly NOT statistically small.

What will happen, is that if one of the reaches turns out good, then everyone will crow about what foresight the Braves had, blah, blah without focus on the other 5-6 picks who don't amount to anything. Now, I realize that the baseball draft is a crapshoot. However, the ODDS of turning up good results with a player that is generally highly regarded around baseball as opposed to a diamond in the rough pick are higher. That's why conventional wisdom BECOMES conventional.

I also disagree with the philosophy of when unsure take a pitcher... During the live ball, steroid era when even Brady Anderson was smacking 50 hr and Brett Boone was having some MVP like seasons (in any other era), and pitching was in short supply, then maybe that philosophy had merit. But times have changed. Now, it's hitting, especially power, that have become hard to find and consequentially most valuable in terms of the open market. Look at the FA classes of the next 2 years and you will see a number of ACE type pitchers and many more just good pitchers available and you will see a veritable wasteland of hitting available.

So the Shanks mantra (which I am sure is being fed from those with a vested interest in the idea within the Braves) of pitching now, pitching always and we will keep the best and trade the rest for what we need on offense just doesn't really make sense in the terms of the game AS IT IS NOW.

[smootness]

Smootness, agree with what you said. But, I will take it a step further and question this year's draft since I think we have gone too far in the other direction possibly, especially with the blinders focus on pitching.

The Allard pick is fine. He's a guy who could have gone first in the draft had things fallen differently and he not had medical concerns show up at the wrong time.

But, essentially every top five round pick after that looks like a reach as far as where the Braves took them. When you do that, you are essentially saying that you are signing them because of money (doesn't appear to be the case since all are signed at slot or above) or that you believe that your scouts are right and ALL of baseball are wrong. And, while there are certainly TIMES when you may have unique knowledge that the rest of baseball does not have, Those times are statistically few while 7 of the first 8 picks is certainly NOT statistically small.

What will happen, is that if one of the reaches turns out good, then everyone will crow about what foresight the Braves had, blah, blah without focus on the other 5-6 picks who don't amount to anything. Now, I realize that the baseball draft is a crapshoot. However, the ODDS of turning up good results with a player that is generally highly regarded around baseball as opposed to a diamond in the rough pick are higher. That's why conventional wisdom BECOMES conventional.

I also disagree with the philosophy of when unsure take a pitcher... During the live ball, steroid era when even Brady Anderson was smacking 50 hr and Brett Boone was having some MVP like seasons (in any other era), and pitching was in short supply, then maybe that philosophy had merit. But times have changed. Now, it's hitting, especially power, that have become hard to find and consequentially most valuable in terms of the open market. Look at the FA classes of the next 2 years and you will see a number of ACE type pitchers and many more just good pitchers available and you will see a veritable wasteland of hitting available.

So the Shanks mantra (which I am sure is being fed from those with a vested interest in the idea within the Braves) of pitching now, pitching always and we will keep the best and trade the rest for what we need on offense just doesn't really make sense in the terms of the game AS IT IS NOW.

Good post, and I mostly agree. I was vocal about us reaching and taking too many pitchers during the draft. After some time to sit back and think, I'm more ok with it now. I still wanted more hitters in the top 10 rounds, but I like some of the guys we took later and got for over slot, like Ellison.

I still agree somewhat on the reaches, but I also realize that once you get past the truly top guys, any difference in ranking of high schoolers is probably splitting hairs, so long as they're ranked in the general vicinity. We also took several quick-risers, like Soroka and Guardado, and it's hard to judge where those guys should be taken.

As long as we got high-upside guys that we like and that weren't just severe reaches, I'm ok with it. We also took very, very young high schoolers that we may project to make a big jump just in the next year or two. Allard, Soroka, and Guardado are still 17, and Riley just turned 18 a couple months ago.

We'll have to wait to see who we sign internationally. If we can get some hitters with more upside than were there at 28, then I'm ok with the draft.

This draft will be determined by guys like Riley, Herbert, and Soroka. If they turn out well, it will be a very good draft no matter what.

[Horsehide Harry]

Soroka was listed as 60 predraft by MLB. Buy, he caught helium late so the Braves may have wanted him but been afraid they would lose him if the waited until 54 to draft him. If so, then 41 makes sense not 28.

But, let's say the Braves REALLY like Soroka and were willing to reach to make sure they got him, they followed that up with Austin Riley at 41 who was listed as MLB at 106 and is scouted as a hitter with questionable bat speed or a pitcher with no dominant pitch. Then at 54 they go for a defense only catcher, which may make sense in the overall thoughts that you are investing so heavily in pitching that you better have someone who can catch them. However, you could have got a high quality defense only college catcher much later in the draft. Then its all a bunch of college arms through the 5th round.

After Allard, essentially every pick through the 5th was a reach where they were taken.

[Jay212033]

To be honest I could care less about where guys were ranked all I care bout is what our scouts think of these players. Too often we get caught up in where guys are ranked but not what our scout think.

[zbhargrove]

Soroka was listed as 60 predraft by MLB. Buy, he caught helium late so the Braves may have wanted him but been afraid they would lose him if the waited until 54 to draft him. If so, then 41 makes sense not 28.

But, let's say the Braves REALLY like Soroka and were willing to reach to make sure they got him, they followed that up with Austin Riley at 41 who was listed as MLB at 106 and is scouted as a hitter with questionable bat speed or a pitcher with no dominant pitch. Then at 54 they go for a defense only catcher, which may make sense in the overall thoughts that you are investing so heavily in pitching that you better have someone who can catch them. However, you could have got a high quality defense only college catcher much later in the draft. Then its all a bunch of college arms through the 5th round.

After Allard, essentially every pick through the 5th was a reach where they were taken.

He's not a defense only catcher... he actually had very good offensive numbers. He was quoted as saying he takes the most pride in his defense and that's the most important part of his game to him. He looks to be a very talented all around catching prospect, though. He wasn't a reach as many of the experts had him right around where we took him as one of the best catching prospects in this year's draft.

[smootness]

Soroka was listed as 60 predraft by MLB. Buy, he caught helium late so the Braves may have wanted him but been afraid they would lose him if the waited until 54 to draft him. If so, then 41 makes sense not 28.

But, let's say the Braves REALLY like Soroka and were willing to reach to make sure they got him, they followed that up with Austin Riley at 41 who was listed as MLB at 106 and is scouted as a hitter with questionable bat speed or a pitcher with no dominant pitch. Then at 54 they go for a defense only catcher, which may make sense in the overall thoughts that you are investing so heavily in pitching that you better have someone who can catch them. However, you could have got a high quality defense only college catcher much later in the draft. Then its all a bunch of college arms through the 5th round.

After Allard, essentially every pick through the 5th was a reach where they were taken.

Herbert was not a reach. That kid is already calling his own games in high school. He may be a bit like Bethancourt, but I'll take those guys all day over a guy who can hit but can't really ever catch well enough to stick.

And I understand what you're saying on the potential reaches. But as others have said, we don't really know where other teams ranked those guys, and that's really all that matters. If we really like Riley, who was ranked at 106, but another team picking between 42-53 ranked him high enough to take him there, then that ranking doesn't really matter; we would have lost out on him.

Again, as long as we're taking high-upside guys who are at least ranked in the relative vicinity (IOW, not taking a guy ranked in the 500s in the 2nd round), I'm ok with it. We won't really know what these guys will be until 2-3 years from now. I'll go projectable guy with high upside who is ranked a little lower over a lower-ceiling college guy ranked a little higher all day.

And it does deserve mentioning that 3 of our first 6 picks are still 17 years old, with another who just turned 17. There's serious projection left in most of our early picks.

[zbhargrove]

"He was a top 100 prospect on most boards, with a potential plus hitting tool and was well-regarded for his work behind the plate. He has a good, but not necessarily great arm but makes up for any deficiency there with great footwork coming out of the crouch and a quick release. He has a very mature approach at the plate and while he may never hit 30 home runs, his bat shouldn't keep him from have a shot at progressing through the minors."

Doesn't sound like a defense only player to me.

[clvclv]

Riley signing pending Commissioner's Office approval...

http://www.clarionledger.com/story/m...oval/28895779/

[rico43]

Same story confirmed Clark signing.