User Tag List

Page 17 of 24 FirstFirst ... 71516171819 ... LastLast
Results 321 to 340 of 478

Thread: 2019 MLB Draft Thread

  1. #321
    Arbitration Eligible
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    2,923
    Thanks
    161
    Thanked 1,252 Times in 706 Posts
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I'm fine with Carroll at 9 and I know Fangraphs and Baseball America have both mentioned that we're connected to him. But I don't think he's an underslot guy at 9, at least not much of a savings that could help elsewhere. Kiley actually mentioned him being a potential guy with signability issues.

  2. #322
    Hessmania Forever
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    9,991
    Thanks
    3,195
    Thanked 4,953 Times in 3,054 Posts
    Mentioned
    16 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Super View Post
    is size really a detriment anymore? with all the success of "little" guys we've seen?
    I don't know if it's a detriment per se, I just think scouts still place a value on projected physicality due to long-term durability issues. Not saying they are right, but usually if it comes down to two-equally talented guys of different sizes, the nod usually goes to the bigger guy.
    Last edited by 50PoundHead; 05-13-2019 at 10:39 AM.

  3. #323
    Waiting for Free Agency
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Posts
    3,830
    Thanks
    773
    Thanked 845 Times in 570 Posts
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by 50PoundHead View Post
    I don't know if it's a detriment per se, I just think scouts still place a value on projected physicality due to long-term durability issues. Not saying they are right, but usually if it comes down to two-equally talented guys of different sizes, the nod usually goes to the bigger guy.
    i suppose. just not sure how much actual truth is to their feelings on that.
    "This is the end of my presidency. I'm ****ed." - Donald J. Trump, innocent and totally exonerated man, upon hearing a special counsel has been appointed to investigate him.

  4. #324
    Mr. Free Trade
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    2,823
    Thanks
    435
    Thanked 722 Times in 456 Posts
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by nsacpi View Post
    wondering about maybe signing someone under slot at 9 (like Carroll) and using the $ to sign Allen to an overslot deal at 21

    we can't draft anyone with signability (or injury risk) issues with the #9 because we lose that pick if we fail to sign that player...this also reduces our leverage with that pick...so we have an incentive to go after a position player at that spot and also someone who we can have a deal in place with before the draft
    Why not just sign Allan at 9 if you can get a pre draft deal in place?

    Allan is a mid teens guy in most projections so 9 isn't a huge reach. If you can get a pre draft deal in place for 9 then I think you should do that as opposed to playing leverage with him for over slot at 21.

    Regardless, 9, whoever that is, pretty much has to be a pre draft deal otherwise the player's agent will eat the Braves alive over the "lose the pick" leverage.

  5. #325
    Arbitration Eligible
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    2,923
    Thanks
    161
    Thanked 1,252 Times in 706 Posts
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Horsehide Harry View Post
    Regardless, 9, whoever that is, pretty much has to be a pre draft deal otherwise the player's agent will eat the Braves alive over the "lose the pick" leverage.
    We don't lose the pick if the player doesn't sign. Baseball America wrote about it a week or two ago: https://www.baseballamerica.com/stor...are-protected/.

  6. #326
    PosiBraves Hell Gatekeeper
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    15,830
    Thanks
    29
    Thanked 4,767 Times in 2,838 Posts
    Mentioned
    20 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by CJ9 View Post
    We don't lose the pick if the player doesn't sign. Baseball America wrote about it a week or two ago: https://www.baseballamerica.com/stor...are-protected/.
    Good find. This has been a very confusing point.
    I think he (Teheran) finishes with a FIP ~3.3. -CrazyTrain 3/35/2019

    Gausman had a bad walk ratio for us -CrazyTrain 11/20/2018
    BB/9 with Braves: 2.72

    Fried, Newk and a couple other guys for Bumgarner and give him a pay day for 6ish years -CrazyTrain 10/15/18

  7. #327
    Mashin' to Mississippi
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    519
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 151 Times in 90 Posts
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Good to know! Also, amazed I could actually read the article.

  8. #328
    Mr. Free Trade
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    2,823
    Thanks
    435
    Thanked 722 Times in 456 Posts
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by CJ9 View Post
    We don't lose the pick if the player doesn't sign. Baseball America wrote about it a week or two ago: https://www.baseballamerica.com/stor...are-protected/.
    Thanks. However it doesn't say for sure if it is the same slot pick. For instance the Braves dropped from 8 to 9 for not signing Stewart. Do they drop from 9 to 10 if they don't sign this year? Or stay at 9? Or fall somewhere else?

  9. #329
    Arbitration Eligible
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    2,923
    Thanks
    161
    Thanked 1,252 Times in 706 Posts
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Horsehide Harry View Post
    Thanks. However it doesn't say for sure if it is the same slot pick. For instance the Braves dropped from 8 to 9 for not signing Stewart. Do they drop from 9 to 10 if they don't sign this year? Or stay at 9? Or fall somewhere else?
    Believe the CBA states that you drop one spot when you don't sign someone, so I'd assume it would be 10th pick in 2020.

  10. #330
    It's OVER 5,000!
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Posts
    5,168
    Thanks
    211
    Thanked 830 Times in 636 Posts
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    someone beat me to it.

    Instead, I will say: don't understand going under slot at 9 just to go over slot at 21.

  11. #331
    NL Rookie of the Year
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    2,308
    Thanks
    46
    Thanked 758 Times in 498 Posts
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Guys, here is an awesome idea. Let's just draft completely unsignable guys for every pick before round 4 so that we will have like 6 or 7 top 100 picks next year. THEN lets do the same thing next year so we can have 10+. AND THEN....

  12. #332
    NL Rookie of the Year
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    2,308
    Thanks
    46
    Thanked 758 Times in 498 Posts
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Southcack77 View Post
    someone beat me to it.

    Instead, I will say: don't understand going under slot at 9 just to go over slot at 21.
    Its the same idea we used in 2016 when we got 3 top 25 prospects despite two of our picks being in the 40s.

  13. #333
    On BBA's Top 100 Prospects List drewdat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    743
    Thanks
    372
    Thanked 452 Times in 208 Posts
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Isn't the #9 sign or lose? That's why you might take a signability guy there, that's a lot of leverage for an agent.

  14. #334
    It's OVER 5,000!
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Posts
    5,168
    Thanks
    211
    Thanked 830 Times in 636 Posts
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by BeanieAntics View Post
    Its the same idea we used in 2016 when we got 3 top 25 prospects despite two of our picks being in the 40s.
    Yes, but they took the arm they coveted at #3 and signed him under slot.

    They then used the savings to sign guys they also liked to over slot deals.

    They didn't let fate decide whether the guy they liked best fell to them. They went ahead and took him.

    Allan = Ian Anderson. Not Joey Wentz.

  15. #335
    NL Rookie of the Year
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    2,308
    Thanks
    46
    Thanked 758 Times in 498 Posts
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Southcack77 View Post
    Yes, but they took the arm they coveted at #3 and signed him under slot.

    They then used the savings to sign guys they also liked to over slot deals.

    They didn't let fate decide whether the guy they liked best fell to them. They went ahead and took him.

    Allan = Ian Anderson. Not Joey Wentz.

    It was certainly good scouting on the Braves' part, but I'm not sure that I buy the narrative that Anderson was the top guy on their board at the time when guys like Pint, Groome, Lewis, Rutherford, and Whitley were still on the board. Its obviously worked out well, but I'm skeptical that he was THE guy that they wanted at 3. It seems more like he was the guy that they wanted because they knew they could get him relatively cheaply and it would allow them to overspend on picks 40 and 44. Teams take players that aren't the BPA for that reason all the time.

    This would be the same deal. Some teams will go overslot, some will go under, some highly ranked guys will fall, some lower ranked guys will be taken really highly. If one of the top 8 guys fall, then we should probably grab him. If not, I would seriously consider going underslot at 9 (with a guy like Carroll) and then try to pick up a higher upside guy like Allen or Baty at 21. A strategy like that might also allow us to be underslot overall after pick 9 and 21 so that we can also get a solid pick at 60 as well. Maybe we'll have enough left to pull a guy like Ealy or Hampton away from their football scholarship or something like that.

  16. #336
    Mr. Free Trade
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    2,823
    Thanks
    435
    Thanked 722 Times in 456 Posts
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by BeanieAntics View Post
    Guys, here is an awesome idea. Let's just draft completely unsignable guys for every pick before round 4 so that we will have like 6 or 7 top 100 picks next year. THEN lets do the same thing next year so we can have 10+. AND THEN....
    I know you didn't mean that but it's in fact not a horrible strategy given the way things currently work, so long as you're not punting top 5 picks.

    Here's what I mean:

    Say a team plans to blow out it's J2 pool (3-8 top end - (call it 5) guys) and expects to be limited in future years and they are picking 10th in the draft. It would put that team in a position to take an unsignable player (assuming they don't see something they really, really like) at 10 and ~45 and ~90 this year, then sign their 5 international top end guys. Then next year when they are limited on J2, they go into the draft with maybe 2 first round picks and 2 seconds and 2 thirds, assuming no competitive balance picks or comp picks for FA - call it a 5, 11, 42, 46, 80, 91.

    A lot of the strategy would be with timing as well. Assume you know that you're headed for a rebuild like the Giants but you've got enough non tradeable veterans that drive your record to only 10th worst leading into your rebuild year. You finish off your previous window's death throws and pick 10th, but you know you're about to tear it down for a rebuild. Then you go hard J2, punt the current draft, then the next year concentrate on the draft with a ton of picks (helped by the tear down leading into a rebuild), then second year concentrate on the draft fueled by any picks from previous draft that didn't sign, then third year (after two year J2 limitations) your back on heavy J2 AND heavy draft (your payroll is low at this time), 5th year you go heavy on FA signings to fill in the holes leading into your opening window but don't give away any picks. At any time, if you run across a "gotta have him pick" then you take him. But you're not locked into a draft or else philosophy.

  17. #337
    It's OVER 5,000!
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Posts
    5,168
    Thanks
    211
    Thanked 830 Times in 636 Posts
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by BeanieAntics View Post
    It was certainly good scouting on the Braves' part, but I'm not sure that I buy the narrative that Anderson was the top guy on their board at the time when guys like Pint, Groome, Lewis, Rutherford, and Whitley were still on the board. Its obviously worked out well, but I'm skeptical that he was THE guy that they wanted at 3. It seems more like he was the guy that they wanted because they knew they could get him relatively cheaply and it would allow them to overspend on picks 40 and 44. Teams take players that aren't the BPA for that reason all the time.

    This would be the same deal. Some teams will go overslot, some will go under, some highly ranked guys will fall, some lower ranked guys will be taken really highly. If one of the top 8 guys fall, then we should probably grab him. If not, I would seriously consider going underslot at 9 (with a guy like Carroll) and then try to pick up a higher upside guy like Allen or Baty at 21. A strategy like that might also allow us to be underslot overall after pick 9 and 21 so that we can also get a solid pick at 60 as well. Maybe we'll have enough left to pull a guy like Ealy or Hampton away from their football scholarship or something like that.

    I don't want to get into all of that again. It's been debated. No one's mind is going to be changed about that scenario regardless of how it all ends up playing as far as talent performance.

    What I'm saying is just that Anderson was the highest rated player the Braves took that year, even IF he was drafted there solely for signability reasons.

    I think Allan is pretty highly likely to be the highest rated player the Braves draft if he ends up in Atlanta. He might fall to their second pick, but seems like a good chance he will not. The Braves dollar pool does change. I guess it's possible Allen's demand could change based on draft position but honestly the guy has a number and that's what it likely will take wherever he falls.

  18. #338
    It's OVER 5,000!
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Posts
    5,168
    Thanks
    211
    Thanked 830 Times in 636 Posts
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Horsehide Harry View Post
    I know you didn't mean that but it's in fact not a horrible strategy given the way things currently work, so long as you're not punting top 5 picks.

    Here's what I mean:

    Say a team plans to blow out it's J2 pool (3-8 top end - (call it 5) guys) and expects to be limited in future years and they are picking 10th in the draft. It would put that team in a position to take an unsignable player (assuming they don't see something they really, really like) at 10 and ~45 and ~90 this year, then sign their 5 international top end guys. Then next year when they are limited on J2, they go into the draft with maybe 2 first round picks and 2 seconds and 2 thirds, assuming no competitive balance picks or comp picks for FA - call it a 5, 11, 42, 46, 80, 91.

    A lot of the strategy would be with timing as well. Assume you know that you're headed for a rebuild like the Giants but you've got enough non tradeable veterans that drive your record to only 10th worst leading into your rebuild year. You finish off your previous window's death throws and pick 10th, but you know you're about to tear it down for a rebuild. Then you go hard J2, punt the current draft, then the next year concentrate on the draft with a ton of picks (helped by the tear down leading into a rebuild), then second year concentrate on the draft fueled by any picks from previous draft that didn't sign, then third year (after two year J2 limitations) your back on heavy J2 AND heavy draft (your payroll is low at this time), 5th year you go heavy on FA signings to fill in the holes leading into your opening window but don't give away any picks. At any time, if you run across a "gotta have him pick" then you take him. But you're not locked into a draft or else philosophy.

    I may be wrong, but I don't believe the J2 draft works that way any more. There is a hard cap now. You can trade for a bigger money pool, but you can't really blow it out any more I don't think.

  19. #339
    Steve Harvey'd
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    10,961
    Thanks
    1,184
    Thanked 3,090 Times in 1,862 Posts
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Southcack77 View Post
    I may be wrong, but I don't believe the J2 draft works that way any more. There is a hard cap now. You can trade for a bigger money pool, but you can't really blow it out any more I don't think.
    And those extra 2nd and 3rd round picks donít net you much in pool money so really you are just punting a year of development and dropping one spot for no reason. I think you could employ HH strategy on the 1st round if there isnít anything you like at that point. Grab a hard commit guy with talent and toss some money his way pretty much knowing he will pass. Anything after the first round seems neutral at best.
    Coppy

  20. #340
    Mr. Free Trade
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    2,823
    Thanks
    435
    Thanked 722 Times in 456 Posts
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by bravesfanMatt View Post
    And those extra 2nd and 3rd round picks don’t net you much in pool money so really you are just punting a year of development and dropping one spot for no reason. I think you could employ HH strategy on the 1st round if there isn’t anything you like at that point. Grab a hard commit guy with talent and toss some money his way pretty much knowing he will pass. Anything after the first round seems neutral at best.
    The rules change all the time and you have to change with them. I was working off what I understood the rules to be, which may or may not be in effect now.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •