2019 MLB Draft Thread

[sturg33]

Most of those guys are not elite.

The safest guy at draft time now has the least upside.

The highest risk players ended up perhaps being the best.

I’m not sure exactly what your position is which is why I said I might disagree.

I think spending money on proven guys in FA and trade is pretty inefficient.

I'm not sure I could disagree more with Acuna not being elite.

But fine...

I think the Cubs and Astros and Red Sox have proven the key to developing powerhouses is to have young, controllable, stud position players as your core.

Is that to say we shouldn't draft pitchers? No... but I believe our drafter strategy should center around position players and high upside high school pitchers

[Southcack77]

I'm not sure I could disagree more with Acuna not being elite.

But fine...

I think the Cubs and Astros and Red Sox have proven the key to developing powerhouses is to have young, controllable, stud position players as your core.

Is that to say we shouldn't draft pitchers? No... but I believe our drafter strategy should center around position players and high upside high school pitchers

It should focus on high upside anywhere it can be found, imo.

I got no problem drafting high upside bats of any kind.

Not sure where you got that about acuna.

[Enscheff]

i still don’t understand the logic of “every team needs a lot of pitchers. pitchers are risky. therefore you don’t want to acquire a lot of pitchers.”

It's actually very simple...

Let other teams take on the risk of developing pitchers. We are seeing this realization manifest itself in the draft more and more recently.

[nsacpi]

we cant and shouldn't follow the Cubs and Red Sox models which has included lavishing big contracts on Lester, Darvish, Price and Sale for many of what are typically decline years.

I do like the trade the Astros made for Verlander and said so at the time. The difference lies in years of exposure to the risks of signing a pitcher to a big contract.

[Super]

Use cheap options (draft picks) on safer assets. Use expensive options (free agents and trades) on established, less risky options.

any pitcher is risky. older, "developed" pitchers can cost a lot, money-wise or prospect-wise. they can get hurt or tank at any time. now you owe them a lot of money, or gave up a lot to get them. acquiring these pitchers isn't easy, and is a gamble in itself.

[Super]

It's actually very simple...

Let other teams take on the risk of developing pitchers. We are seeing this realization manifest itself in the draft more and more recently.

where do you get the ~10 starters you need per year then? paying vets, or hoping 3rd rounders and on pan out doesn't sound great.

[Super]

I'm not sure I could disagree more with Acuna not being elite.

he didn't say he wasn't tho

[Super]

I think the Cubs and Astros and Red Sox have proven the key to developing powerhouses is to have young, controllable, stud position players as your core.

have they?
i don't think the astros have proven that at all. since 2010, they've taken 5 pitchers and 7 hitters in the first round. they had back-to-back-to-back #1 overall picks, and took 2 pitchers.

since 2010 the Sox have had 15 1st rounders and took pitchers with 8 of them. their best player and MVP was a 5th rounder. the Sale trade has worked out for them, but what if you had had to trade Acuña for him? Are you as happy then? they dealt Moncada, who was ranked on par with what Ronald was.

i don't think those teams focused on acquiring hitters quite as much as you're suggesting here. i think they took a look at what was available the draft (the Cubs, as well, with Bryant and Schwarber - those guys happened to fall in their laps. I think the Braves would've made the same moves given the chance) and took who they thought was best.

the Braves invested in pitching and it's beginning to work out. meanwhile, they still have a lot of good, young position players and prospects and none of them were super high investments, Albies and Acuña included.

[msstate7]

Yeah, I don't get the target one or the other. We should always draft best available player

[Southcack77]

we cant and shouldn't follow the Cubs and Red Sox models which has included lavishing big contracts on Lester, Darvish, Price and Sale for many of what are typically decline years.

I do like the trade the Astros made for Verlander and said so at the time. The difference lies in years of exposure to the risks of signing a pitcher to a big contract.

Anybody that cites the Yankees or Red Sox as a model for franchise building is being silly. At every step of the process they have been grossly advantaged by having unlimited resources.

They have done a lot of smart things, but their ability to continually put a product on the field is in the end mostly having the money to do anything they want. Doing it smartly is a feather in their cap of course. You can screw it up.

Similarly, citing the Astros who tore it all down and went on an extended run of misery to accumulate assets is certainly a strategy, but a very specific one. I personally do not think that is the best way of managing a franchise and and any team taking that path needs to have truly reached the end of all other options.

[UNCBlue012]

The Athletic put out a mock draft today with their MLB beat writers. I wouldn't waste your time with it. DOB picked Manoah at 9 and suggested the Braves stick him in the bullpen, so that was fun.

Dude is so out of touch. It's kind of insane he has people who actually think he's good at his job.

[nsacpi]

Monoah should be under consideration at #9. But the part about sticking him in the pen is silly.

[Southcack77]

have they?
i don't think the astros have proven that at all. since 2010, they've taken 5 pitchers and 7 hitters in the first round. they had back-to-back-to-back #1 overall picks, and took 2 pitchers.

since 2010 the Sox have had 15 1st rounders and took pitchers with 8 of them. their best player and MVP was a 5th rounder. the Sale trade has worked out for them, but what if you had had to trade Acuña for him? Are you as happy then? they dealt Moncada, who was ranked on par with what Ronald was.

i don't think those teams focused on acquiring hitters quite as much as you're suggesting here. i think they took a look at what was available the draft (the Cubs, as well, with Bryant and Schwarber - those guys happened to fall in their laps. I think the Braves would've made the same moves given the chance) and took who they thought was best.

the Braves invested in pitching and it's beginning to work out. meanwhile, they still have a lot of good, young position players and prospects and none of them were super high investments, Albies and Acuña included.

It's simply assembling a great core of young talent and making good decisions with your resources.

Kris Bryant is specifically an interesting thing to talk about when discussing those particular teams. Lots of teams would have drafted Bryant if they had the opportunity. In fact the only team that passed on him was ... the Houston Astros, who took Mark Appel at #1. Aside from taking perhaps the obvious choice when they drafted, the biggest moves the Cubs made was buy low on Arrietta and Rizzo and spend a lot of money. Much of the rest of their so called young core of talent has disappointed, with Baez being the primary exception.

Cash makes a huge difference.

[CJ9]

Fangraphs new mock: https://blogs.fangraphs.com/mock-draft-3-0-two-rounds/

9. Braves – Nick Lodolo, LHP, TCU
We just think this would be good value here, but Lodolo is polarizing. They’ve scouted Bishop very heavily, Priester is a sleeper here, as is Hoese either here (under slot) or at their next pick.

21. Braves – Kody Hoese, 3B, Tulane
Hoese may be an underslot option earlier than this, at eight to Texas and possibly with Atlanta’s first pick, but has lots of landing spots in the back half of the first round.

60. Braves – Ryne Nelson, RHP, Oregon

[Jaw]

Dude is so out of touch. It's kind of insane he has people who actually think he's good at his job.

I think he's a good reporter. I really enjoyed his blog in it's heyday several years ago when it received hundreds of posts per day on ajc.com. The AJC apparently had to change their blog software just because of the traffic his blog was creating. He even made an effort to take statistics mainstream with that crowd, albeit with selective time periods and small sample sizes. In general he's just an engaging and decent guy who realizes he has the best job in sports print media.

He runs into trouble when he tries to be an analyst. Assuming that role utilizes none of his strengths and all of his weaknesses. It's really a shame.

[Southcack77]

where do you get the ~10 starters you need per year then? paying vets, or hoping 3rd rounders and on pan out doesn't sound great.

There is more nuance in his actual position that he is letting on in this thread.

[CJ9]

The Fangraphs scouting report on Hoese is rough: Popup name has crazy numbers (1.357 OPS, 17 HR through 33 games) but was a draft eligible sophomore that went in the 35th round last year, will be 22 just after the draft. He has below average bat speed and beats up on bad pitching, so he's a 3rd rounder for most clubs, but could be a 2nd round money-saver for a progressive club with multiple picks.

[Super]

It's simply assembling a great core of young talent and making good decisions with your resources.

Kris Bryant is specifically an interesting thing to talk about when discussing those particular teams. Lots of teams would have drafted Bryant if they had the opportunity. In fact the only team that passed on him was ... the Houston Astros, who took Mark Appel at #1. Aside from taking perhaps the obvious choice when they drafted, the biggest moves the Cubs made was buy low on Arrietta and Rizzo and spend a lot of money. Much of the rest of their so called young core of talent has disappointed, with Baez being the primary exception.

Cash makes a huge difference.

the Braves screwing up big time by focusing on acquiring pitching is laughably overblown.
the claims of other teams focusing on hitters is also way, WAY overblown...it's basically just not true, at all. the Braves may have focused more on pitching than those teams did, but they still went after pitching.

[Hudson2]

The Braves went BPA in the draft imo. They wanted Senzel but he went the pick before us and they would of taken Royce Lewis if he were there so with Wright falling to them it was a no brainer.

[Super]

The Braves went BPA in the draft imo. They wanted Senzel but he went the pick before us and they would of taken Royce Lewis if he were there so with Wright falling to them it was a no brainer.

i do think in general they focused on acquiring pitching. they received a lot in trades and took a lot at the top of the draft for some years there (which i also think was BPA in some cases).