MLB Draft Thread

Southcack77 said:
Nah, I'm good with the write up. Limited upside to pick 2 and 3 and big questions about #1. Pretty universal consensus.
Click to expand...
Lodise literally projects as a starting caliber SS.

Middling power? Not sure where you're getting that when his write ups say he has above average power. The same goes for Tate.
 
zbhargrove said:
Middling power? lol okay dude… that’s just a troll statement

Additionally, Tate had some late helium, putting up some of the best EV in the combine.
Click to expand...
I agree ZB, but I also agree with South. Helium...Helium...let that sink in. I hate pop up prospects who have helium before the draft. Not that they are less attractive prospects, but hell....give me a baseball, I'll throw it 70 on a good day. I liken it to football. The tape don't lie. The teams that know that are successful. It's why you get an Ian Anderson and Kolby Allard type.
 
Deester11 said:
I agree ZB, but I also agree with South. Helium...Helium...let that sink in. I hate pop up prospects who have helium before the draft. Not that they are less attractive prospects, but hell....give me a baseball, I'll throw it 70 on a good day. I liken it to football. The tape don't lie. The teams that know that are successful. It's why you get an Ian Anderson and Kolby Allard type.
Click to expand...
But he wasn’t a pop up. He was always thought to be at least a second round talent and then he showed out and improved his stock. It was reported several other teams wanted him in the first round.
 
Deester11 said:
I agree ZB, but I also agree with South. Helium...Helium...let that sink in. I hate pop up prospects who have helium before the draft. Not that they are less attractive prospects, but hell....give me a baseball, I'll throw it 70 on a good day. I liken it to football. The tape don't lie. The teams that know that are successful. It's why you get an Ian Anderson and Kolby Allard type.
Click to expand...

Regardless of whether Tate was a good pick, the Braves are suckers for helium. They bit hard on Murphy's velocity bump before they took him. That looks to have an outlier.

Murphy might turn out to be a good pitcher but there's no way he's a first rounder if teams knew his velocity was going to drop back to where it was.
 
Hudson2 said:
I saw the same stuff. It wasn't just helium he was rising up boards.
Click to expand...

A rapid rise up draft boards due to recent results is literally the definition of helium. Helium isn't good or bad. Sometimes the helium is justified, sometimes it's fools gold.

Tate benefited from helium at the right time. Maybe it's real and he's a star. Maybe it's not and he's a stat. Either way, he had late helium.
 
zbhargrove said:
But he wasn’t a pop up. He was always thought to be at least a second round talent and then he showed out and improved his stock. It was reported several other teams wanted him in the first round.
Click to expand...
I wasn't talking specifically about Tate, but the premise remains.
 
striker42 said:
Regardless of whether Tate was a good pick, the Braves are suckers for helium. They bit hard on Murphy's velocity bump before they took him. That looks to have an outlier.

Murphy might turn out to be a good pitcher but there's no way he's a first rounder if teams knew his velocity was going to drop back to where it was.
Click to expand...

It doesn't always work for sure, but it's hard to argue with the overall results of the drafts under AA (sans the 2018 draft). We produced at least one 3 WAR player in every draft from 2019-2022 (well Baldwin isn't technically there yet, but he isn't far off). 2023 may end up being a dud, but it's still too early to make a judgement on that.

The track record for our 1st round picks isn't great, that's for sure. But it seems like our strategy has mostly been to spread out the money over the draft as best as possible and give ourselves a higher chance on hitting on 1 or 2 guys per year, rather than dumping most of our bonus pool into 1 or 2 picks.

And of course we do occasionally take BPA in the 1st round. I would argue both Waldrep and Caminiti were BPA picks that were not "helium" guys. Waldrep was considered an early 1st rounder for several months before the draft and finished at #6 overall on FGs pre-draft rankings. It could be argued that Carter Stewart in 2018 was also BPA, even though we didn't sign him.
 
Best value: Briggs McKenzie (fourth round). He's certainly going to sign for well over slot, with rumors he was looking for $3 million before the draft. He's a solid athlete with a standout, sweeping breaking ball and starter traits.

Quickest to the big leagues: There isn't an obvious answer, but it'll probably be whichever of Alex Lodise (No. 60 overall), Dixon Williams (fourth round) and Landon Beidelschies (sixth round) takes one step forward developmentally. If Beidelschies is a relief-only development project, then he's a clear answer.

Sleeper to watch: Conor Essenburg (fifth round). He was seen more as a left-handed starter who was likely going to college entering the spring, then hit really well this spring (including a home run off of a Jack Bauer fastball) and got into the third-to-fifth-round area as a hit-over-power corner outfielder who may be just scratching the surface.

One big thought: Cody Miller (No. 96 overall) looks like the major piece of savings to set up the pool to pay for McKenzie. Tate Southisene (No. 22 overall) has the tools to be an above-average every-day player if an adjustment to the setup and load of his swing can work, which is doable. He was a favorite of a number of teams that like to stockpile athletic-testing standouts.
 
Agreed on the Cody Miller bit. He seems like a fantastic type of piece to save money on while still giving you a decent bit of upside if the increased power he showed this year is legit. He certainly is not your average cost savings pick.
 
Deester11 said:
Not a bad view of it to be honest. But I've seen all ends of the prospect spectrum and I guarantee that any of you can see a player on a given day and say "what the f...were they thinking signing this guy?" or you could marvel at the kids who got little money and can flat out play. To your point, we don't know until we know. This post started out with me doing an exercise in showing you scouting reports vs actual results or (the Deester eye-test model...ha).

I quit half way in. It's inexact and a waste of time. The Braves do better than most in the latter rounds, but that doesn't mean you can't take a stab at 'perceived' higher talent early on (money notwithstanding). But their strategy has merit. It is what it is.
Click to expand...
I would give your opinion on these guys more weight than I’d give mine. My comment was more about my own lack of knowledge though I feel it could be extended to plenty of others.
 
Super said:
I would give your opinion on these guys more weight than I’d give mine. My comment was more about my own lack of knowledge though I feel it could be extended to plenty of others.
Click to expand...
I think this thread and the minor league thread usually have pretty good observations in them. Yours, mine...all of us really.

As for the draft strategy, I'm going to just say that I'm not a big fan of the "float" strategy the Braves use. I understand it. And although it doesn't move me much, it has merit. Rankings are full of subjective view and the Braves tend to follow their own tiers pretty successfully. In any case, I like telling you guys what I see...good or bad. I've mentioned prospects that people have highly ranked that I'm not really high on. So I'll take what this draft has given and hopefully, I'm seeing a better and more robust system ahead.
 
Deester11 said:
I think this thread and the minor league thread usually have pretty good observations in them. Yours, mine...all of us really.

As for the draft strategy, I'm going to just say that I'm not a big fan of the "float" strategy the Braves use. I understand it. And although it doesn't move me much, it has merit. Rankings are full of subjective view and the Braves tend to follow their own tiers pretty successfully. In any case, I like telling you guys what I see...good or bad. I've mentioned prospects that people have highly ranked that I'm not really high on. So I'll take what this draft has given and hopefully, I'm seeing a better and more robust system ahead.
Click to expand...
It'll be fun this time next year to see how these guys are performing. If they are performing well we'll probably see a similar approach next year unless we have a top 5 pick and then it's more of a no brainer
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top