CONTEST: Guess who the Braves draft.

Status
Not open for further replies.
50PoundHead said:
I don't follow this like I used to, so I don't have a handle on these guys, but Forbes looks like a very high risk/somewhat high reward guy. He does fit my tools predilection though.

The only thing that doesn't make a ton of sense here is that it appears the Braves made an aggressive push in Latin America last summer and signed some hitting prospects they seem intent on pushing. Jay is our resident Latin American follower and maybe he could shed some light on that.

Despite what some in here believe, I think the farm system has fallen dramatically and we need to beef it up across the board. Working hard and smart on the draft and in the international market is the way to do that.
Click to expand...

I think the dramatic fall in the overall talent of the minors is in part due to the fact that they have simply missed on many of these raw, toolsy prospects recently.
 
50PoundHead said:
I don't follow this like I used to, so I don't have a handle on these guys, but Forbes looks like a very high risk/somewhat high reward guy. He does fit my tools predilection though.

The only thing that doesn't make a ton of sense here is that it appears the Braves made an aggressive push in Latin America last summer and signed some hitting prospects they seem intent on pushing. Jay is our resident Latin American follower and maybe he could shed some light on that.

Despite what some in here believe, I think the farm system has fallen dramatically and we need to beef it up across the board. Working hard and smart on the draft and in the international market is the way to do that.
Click to expand...

It does look like they like the two kids from Curacao, who they are moving up to the GCL in their first seasons at age 17. Both are listed as SS, but my guess is they already plan to move one of them elsewhere. There is another 17 year old, Alejandro Salazar, who has gotten off to a great start in the DSL. The fact they are playing him at SS and hitting 3rd says something. So it seems to me we reloaded on infield prospects this past international signing season. Doesn't mean we won't add more in the draft. But at the margins it has to push us in the direction of pitching, outfield, catcher and corner infield in the draft.
 
KB21 said:
I think the dramatic fall in the overall talent of the minors is in part due to the fact that they have simply missed on many of these raw, toolsy prospects recently.
Click to expand...

Plus we traded Drury, who is perhaps the only one so far who is panning out.
 
KB21 said:
I think the dramatic fall in the overall talent of the minors is in part due to the fact that they have simply missed on many of these raw, toolsy prospects recently.
Click to expand...

They've totally missed on some of the toolsy guys, but some of the steadier, safer picks haven't fared that well either. I think last year's draft has some promise and I tend to overlook how Alex Wood just flew through the system, so I realize it's not as bad as I often think it is.
 
nsacpi said:
Plus we traded Drury, who is perhaps the only one so far who is panning out.
Click to expand...

He is on a slow climb (but he was young when drafted and Oregon is hardly a baseball hotbed) and I'm curious to see how he continues to develop. Power numbers are up this year, but the California League is a good hitters' league. His average is down a bit from last year. He's still only 21. There are days I think getting out of the Braves' system was the best thing that could have happened to him.
 
Perfect Game's mock draft has Atlanta taking Michael Chavis, or I should say is one of several that I have seen that has Chavis available to Atlanta.
 
I wonder if we will go back to more college heavy drafting given our struggles with toolsy high school kids. We've had some "luck" with mid to late (after the fifth round) college picks in recent years. The ones who have made the majors already: Shae Simmons (22nd round 2012), La Stella (8th round, 2011), Schlosser (17th round 2011), Terdoslavich (6th round 2010), Gattis (23rd round 2010), Clemens (7th round 2008), Oberholtzer (8th round 2008), Hoover (10th round 2008), Beachy (NDFA 2008).

Based on the Braves track record, I would recommend they concentrate their high school picks in the first five rounds and go mainly with college kids beyond the 5th round.
 
nsacpi said:
I wonder if we will go back to more college heavy drafting given our struggles with toolsy high school kids. We've had some "luck" with mid to late (after the fifth round) college picks in recent years. The ones who have made the majors already: Shae Simmons (22nd round 2012), La Stella (8th round, 2011), Schlosser (17th round 2011), Terdoslavich (6th round 2010), Gattis (23rd round 2010), Clemens (7th round 2008), Oberholtzer (8th round 2008), Hoover (10th round 2008), Beachy (NDFA 2008).
Click to expand...

I've been thinking about that. Atlanta has been college heavy in the top 10 rounds ever since Tony DeMacio became the scouting director in 2010.

Part of me would like to see them pluck Jacob Lindgren with the 32nd pick and see if they can stretch him out. He's going to be a fast riser and could be on a track like Alex Wood. He's a lefty with mid 90s stuff and a wipe out slider.
 
KB21 said:
Perfect Game's mock draft has Atlanta taking Michael Chavis, or I should say is one of several that I have seen that has Chavis available to Atlanta.
Click to expand...

Saw that. I bought a one-month subscription over there, but probably won't be sharing much of what I read because it's premium content. I've always liked the analysis over there and seeing some of the differences in opinion between that site, BA, and mlb.com.

Chavis versus Forbes is an interesting comparison. Both have played extensively on the summer circuit, but I wonder if Chavis has matured physically and if there's more room for a considerable uptick in strength. Most scouts seem to think Forbes is going to fill out a lot more.

nsacpi, could be. I think of two years ago when we drafted de la Rosa and Black three and four and it doesn't appear that either of those guys is going to make it. 2012 may go down as one of the weirdest Braves' drafts. Two guys--Alex Wood and Shae Simmons--already in the bigs and Lucas Sims looks like a keeper. Other than that, maybe Elander translates at some point. The rest is a mess. Some uber-tools types--Black, Brown, Lien, and Sanchez--who just aren't getting there.

I'm guessing we will see a mix. Could be more college heavy in the first ten rounds after going ceiling in the first round or two.
 
The 2010 and 2011 drafts were weird too. The first round picks (Lipka and Gilmartin) look like busts. But after that we got a bunch of good to useful college players in both drafts.
 
nsacpi said:
The 2010 and 2011 drafts were weird too. The first round picks (Lipka and Gilmartin) look like busts. But after that we got a bunch of good to useful college players in both drafts.
Click to expand...

And I didn't mind the Lipka pick. He seems to have a ton of trouble staying healthy, but he's an athlete they were going to try to teach to play baseball and those guys are about 50/50 even when in perfect health. I hated the Gilmartin pick. Total 180 from the Lipka pick in that he's a low-ceiling guy who was pretty much at that ceiling when drafted.

The juxtaposition of those two first-rounders makes me wonder about the collective mindset of the scouting department. You knew under Chuck Lamar that the Braves were probably going to draft a football player with their first pick. You knew with Roy Clark (especially when he had the pocketbook) that he was going to be tools/ceiling centric in his approach. DeMacio has been all over the board. He's gotten some useful support-level guys, but I have yet to see him draft a top drawer tools guy who has a better than average chance to develop into a major league player. That's not easy when you're drafting in the bottom half of the first round, but I am kind of puzzled by that.
 
High school players we've drafted and signed in the first five rounds since 2007: Heyward, Freeman, Gilmore, DeVall, Stovall, Spruill, Lipka, Sims, de la Rosa, Black, Salazar, Murphy

College players taken in the first five rounds since 2007: Hicks, Gearrin, Dixon, Kimbrel, Schlehuber, Thompson, Minor, Hale, Mycal Jones, Berryhill, Cunningham, Andrelton Simmons, Leonard, Filak, Gosselin, Gilmartin, Ahmed, Kubitza, Graham, DeSantiago, Wood, Brown, Hursh, Caratini, Reynolds

Which group do you like better after accounting for the fact there are 12 HS players and 25 college players in the two groups.
 
nsacpi said:
High school players we've drafted and signed in the first five rounds since 2007: Heyward, Freeman, Gilmore, DeVall, Stovall, Spruill, Lipka, Sims, de la Rosa, Black, Salazar, Murphy

College players taken in the first five rounds since 2007: Hicks, Gearrin, Dixon, Kimbrel, Schlehuber, Thompson, Minor, Hale, Mycal Jones, Berryhill, Cunningham, Andrelton Simmons, Leonard, Filak, Gosselin, Gilmartin, Ahmed, Kubitza, Graham, DeSantiago, Wood, Brown, Hursh, Caratini, Reynolds

Which group do you like better after accounting for the fact there are 12 HS players and 25 college players in the two groups.
Click to expand...

Good question. I think the Heyward/Freeman tandem is the best we've done at the top of the draft (probably ever) and of the guys you've listed, they are foundation-type guys. Kimbrel is the best of the college lot, but he and Simmons were JC guys. Minor, Hale, and Wood have all arrived as well. I think the difference is that they've missed badly on the high school guys. It's not that they are high school guys. The estimates of their ability/development arc were just so far off. They haven't missed as badly with college guys (DeSantiago being the notable exception). Dixon went the football route, so he hardly counts. But you will note the difference in projected ceilings between the college and high school guys and that pretty much sums up the debate of college v. high school in the prospect game.

From last year, I think Hursh will play in the majors and I like Caratini's potential. I thought Reynolds was a terrible pick. Of the high school guys from 2013, I am curious to see how Salazar does at Danville. Obvious he wasn't ready for Rome but he has a big fastball. I'll also be curious about Murphy.
 
50PoundHead said:
Good question. I think the Heyward/Freeman tandem is the best we've done at the top of the draft (probably ever) and of the guys you've listed, they are foundation-type guys. Kimbrel is the best of the college lot, but he and Simmons were JC guys. Minor, Hale, and Wood have all arrived as well. I think the difference is that they've missed badly on the high school guys. It's not that they are high school guys. The estimates of their ability/development arc were just so far off. They haven't missed as badly with college guys (DeSantiago being the notable exception). Dixon went the football route, so he hardly counts. But you will note the difference in projected ceilings between the college and high school guys and that pretty much sums up the debate of college v. high school in the prospect game.

From last year, I think Hursh will play in the majors and I like Caratini's potential. I thought Reynolds was a terrible pick. Of the high school guys from 2013, I am curious to see how Salazar does at Danville. Obvious he wasn't ready for Rome but he has a big fastball. I'll also be curious about Murphy.
Click to expand...

I think it is a close call. But considering we drafted twice as many college players in the first five rounds, I slightly prefer the high school group. To me the fact that the two groups are pretty closely balanced in terms of value yield is an argument for having a mixed balanced approach in the first five rounds. Yes high school players are more hit and miss. But when you hit they tend to be higher ceiling.

After the first five rounds our track record seems to be better with college players, though again you have to take into account we have drafted far more college players in recent years.
 
nsacpi said:
I think it is a close call. But considering we drafted twice as many college players in the first five rounds, I slightly prefer the high school group. To me the fact that the two groups are pretty closely balanced in terms of value yield is an argument for having a mixed balanced approach in the first five rounds. Yes high school players are more hit and miss. But when you hit they tend to be higher ceiling.

After the first five rounds our track record seems to be better with college players, though again you have to take into account we have drafted far more college players in recent years.
Click to expand...

Kind of off-topic, but I had totally forgotten about Ahmed so I looked to see how he was doing in the Arizona system. Even after his horrid season in AA last year, the D-Backs moved him up to AAA and he's doing much better. Of course, the PCL is notoriously hitter-friendly. He's another guy who would have projected as a bench player in Atlanta, given Simmons is going to be the SS for the next half decade and Ahmed doesn't hit enough for 3B. He may have been a handy guy to back up around the IF. He's pretty much facing the same issue in Arizona as he was in Atlanta, as Gregorious will be holding down SS there for the foreseeable future.

Surprised to see the guys on the list who were part of some fairly big trades (Gilmore, Spruill, Ahmed). Gilmore is out of baseball. He reminds me of Justin Black from 2012 in that Iowa, like Montana, doesn't really have what one would call a high school baseball program. Makes it difficult to judge those guys and I'm sure the Braves aren't the first franchise that has whiffed on this type of guy.

I agree on the mixed approach. I think anyone who clings to either the "all tools" or "all production irrespective of context" is fooling themselves.
 
Want a possible off the radar guy for Atlanta?

Eric Skoglund from Central Florida
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top