2017 mock draft

[chop2chip]

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.

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.

[rico43]

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.

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.

This served the Astros well when they made Correa the No. 1 pick, did it not?

[smootness]

UCLA commitment likely means there are no bargains to be had here.

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.

[bravesfanMatt]

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.

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.

[Preacher]

It sounds crazy considering how bad we are/have been...... but the Twins are not giving up on that #1 overall pick.

[goldfly]

If we have the #1 pick then they better go BPA instead of going the value route.

this honestly could make me not become a fan if they go value route instead of BPA

[Preacher]

this honestly could make me not become a fan if they go value route instead of BPA

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.

Who was the absolute stud this year that you had to take #1?

[smootness]

this honestly could make me not become a fan if they go value route instead of BPA

Again, BPA at #1 will almost always be a value pick as well. It's another advantage of picking #1.

[Preacher]

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.

[auyushu]

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.

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.

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.

[Preacher]

The only real disappointment I had was taking Harrington over Heath Quinn. 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.

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.

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.

[Oklahomabrave]

Sure, but it wasn't just about Wentz/Muller -- it was also Wilson/Harrington/Cumberland that they wanted and gave overslot deals with.

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.

[zbhargrove]

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

[Preacher]

1. Atlanta 46-80 .365
2. Minnesota 49-76 .392
3. Arizona 52-74 .413
4. Los Angeles 52-73 .416

[smootness]

We're just about guaranteed a top 2 pick, and it's going to be tough for the Twins to catch us.

[Chico]

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

[Pachoo]

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.