- STARTS TODAY AT 7PM - 2016 June Amateur Draft Discussion
- Thread starter rico43
- Start date
- Status
Tapate50
Well-known member
If I may interject my .02, but I think most posters and nsacpi are using two different definitions of stacked. nsacpi is using "plenty" as in too many or enough and pretty much everyone else is using "more than just about everyone else".
It is similar, but different. Hope that helps.
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
The other difference is that in looking at the "system" I'm also looking at how many established starters we have at the ML level that we will have control of over the next 3-5 years. If we had three my view of whether we have enough on the farm would be different from a situation where we have one.
yeezus
It's OVER 5,000!
but if our farm isn't stacked at SP, then no one's is. which in and of itself kind of means we're stacked.
chop2chip
Well-known member
I think you could make the argument that we still need more quality starting pitching in the organization if you factor in the big league rotation.
MLB:
Teheran
Wisler
Blair
Folty?
AAA:
Jenkins?
Sims?
AA:
Newcomb
Ellis?
A+:
Povse?
A:
Allard
Sorotka
Sanchez?
I'm probably forgetting a few there, but my point is that we have plenty of awesome pitching prospects coming into the season, but outside of Teheran and Wisler the cupboard was absolutely bare in the big leagues. I think each organization that is expecting to compete should have 7-8 quality starting pitchers options at any given time. I don't think we have enough pitchers in the system yet for that. That's why I would be really glad to see us pursue a TOR arm in this offseason or the next. I also don't think we are at the point yet where we should just assume we can trade our starting pitcher depth for position players.
If Ray and Puk are off the board by pick 3, then I would prefer Pint or Groome at 3. This just isn't the draft for us to infuse our farm with position players.
MLB:
Teheran
Wisler
Blair
Folty?
AAA:
Jenkins?
Sims?
AA:
Newcomb
Ellis?
A+:
Povse?
A:
Allard
Sorotka
Sanchez?
I'm probably forgetting a few there, but my point is that we have plenty of awesome pitching prospects coming into the season, but outside of Teheran and Wisler the cupboard was absolutely bare in the big leagues. I think each organization that is expecting to compete should have 7-8 quality starting pitchers options at any given time. I don't think we have enough pitchers in the system yet for that. That's why I would be really glad to see us pursue a TOR arm in this offseason or the next. I also don't think we are at the point yet where we should just assume we can trade our starting pitcher depth for position players.
If Ray and Puk are off the board by pick 3, then I would prefer Pint or Groome at 3. This just isn't the draft for us to infuse our farm with position players.
bravesfanMatt
Steve Harvey'd
Has anyone else heard that Lewis has publicly said he wants to be a Brave? Someone was telling me that yesterday, but I haven't heard anything about it..
Also, I really don't think we go on Pint. Groome is better if we are going HS pitcher... Unless, Pint is under slotted..
yeezus
It's OVER 5,000!
I mean, I haven't seen that anywhere. I don't follow super close tho.
striker42
Well-known member
I like Pint's potential. He's a high schooler with elite velocity and a nasty curve. He's definitely got TOR potential. But he'd be 4 to 5 years from the majors and have a much higher bust potential than others in the draft. I'm still hoping the Reds pass on Lewis. He's a perfect fit for us.
KB21
Where's My Cup of Coffee?
Lewis is definitely ideal for the Braves. I haven't heard any rumors on him, but why do I feel like Nick Senzel is going to be higher on the Braves board than he is on other boards? Something tells me that he will be an option as a below slot signing who can move fast in the system, allowing the Braves to go over slot at picks 40 or 44.
striker42
Well-known member
It's because Senzel is a Braves kind of player. He seems to be a professional with good makeup. He doesn't have the highest ceiling but he's rock solid. He's like Dansby Swanson but at third base.
Honestly, I wouldn't be too upset with Senzel. I'm not sold on Ruiz and think third is still very much a need for us. Senzel is going to hit. The only question is whether he'll hit for power. He's got the raw strength but that hasn't translated into in game power. We could do worse but we could do better too.
yeezus
It's OVER 5,000!
An infield of Senzel, Swanson, Albies, and Freeman would be pretty crazy. Lack of power, sure, but has everything else you'd want.
And Senzel would allow us to potentially work out a deal with someone in the 2nd, right?
striker42
Well-known member
Yeah. Senzel would almost certainly be an underslot guy at 3. That would save us a good bit.
Senzel, Swanson, Albies, and Freeman would be crazy. You'd have 4 guys who are very difficult outs. No mashers in the group but you could end up with double digit HRs from Senzel and Swanson with 20+ from Freeman.
yeezus
It's OVER 5,000!
I think we're getting a little too caught up in the idea of going under slot at 3. I'm fine with it if we can still get the kind of talent we want, but if the most talented player in the draft is sitting there at 3, I think you have to take him and then again go with the best talent you can get at 40 and 44 when the time comes.
We got Soroka at 28 last year, and that is working out just fine. I just don't want us to pass up an elite talent at 3 just because we can get a little better talent at 40.
We got Soroka at 28 last year, and that is working out just fine. I just don't want us to pass up an elite talent at 3 just because we can get a little better talent at 40.
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
Of the guys we might take at three, I think Groome is the only one unlikely to agree to a below slow deal. So the question is whether Groome is worth taking if we can get a below slot deal with Senzel or Perez or one of the others.
- Status