DRAFT IN PROGRESS THREAD ... What's past is preamble

Don't know what any of this means, but the organization is gonna be struggling if they are always looking for cheap options at everything. No clue what under slotting, over slotting, or any of that means.

Then you can't post about the draft or complain if you don't understand how it works.
 
The FO clearly didn't think Groome or Pint were much better than Anderson, if at all. So why on earth take one of them and have to pay them way more money? That's a strategy I wouldn't be ok with. They clearly believe Anderson is close to those guys and has elite potential.

It's funny to see the Moniak pick praised while some are saying Anderson was a bad pick. A month ago these guys were in the same exact boat.

As far as Pint, I wanted to stay away. How many HS guys who throw 100 don't have TJ? Groome fell to the Sox so plenty of other teams passed on him (including San Diego at 8, who took Quantrill).

When there's no clear #1 (there absolutely was not), and not a few guys you have clearly ranked above others, may as well try to get a few of your top guys, and the Braves did just that. I don't think the FO is convinced Groome and Pint are far above Anderson and Wentz. I'm happy.
 
Then you can't post about the draft or complain if you don't understand how it works.

not understanding things will not stop him from complaining. it's his MO, as he understands nothing yet complains about everything.
 
If our first pick was 10 and we ended up signing these three, I'd be thrilled. I'd give this draft an A+. But I have about a dozen players ahead of Anderson. Anderson is very good but to me he's in the second tier of the first rounders in this draft.

Some people are acting like if we took Pint, Groome, or Puk at 3 we would lose the 40th and 44th picks or have to select utility infielders there. That's not the case. We were always going to get good talent there. People ignore that opportunity cost.

It wasn't a choice between one A+ player or three B+ players. It was a choice between three B+ players or one A+ player and two B- players.

I just don't like the strategy of reaching at 3 to get a small talent bump at 40.

I would categorize it more like getting two A- players and a B+ player instead of one A player and two B or B- players.
 
not understanding things will not stop him from complaining. it's his MO, as he understands nothing yet complains about everything.

Oh I know how he works. I rarely if ever post but sometimes the stupid is too strong to not comment.
 
They didn't go under slot to be cheap, they did it to spend more later. But in order to go under slot they passed on better talent.

IN YOUR OPINION, POSSIBLY NOT IN THEIR OPINION. They very likely did not think Groome was much better than Anderson, and you aren't getting Wentz if you take Groome or Pint. The FO obviously would rather have Anderson and Wentz than Pint and a slot guy.
 
Yep the Braves are always looking to cut financial corners when it comes to their players. It's this mindset that will keep the Braves in the cellar for years.

You don't know what you're talking about. We didn't cut any financial corners. You said yourself you don't understand the slotting system, so probably best not to weigh in.
 
jones-tom-photo-tom-jones-6227231.jpg

Half the place would be singing: "Why, why, why, oh Coppy?"

[video=youtube;oMMUve9nd4E]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oMMUve9nd4E[/video]
 
They didn't go under slot to be cheap, they did it to spend more later. But in order to go under slot they passed on better talent.

Again, if Anderson was legitimately a top 3 talent then he should be the pick no matter if he was willing to go under slot or not. If he wanted full slot then I don't see any way he's the pick.

You're still guessing, though. You don't see any way he's the pick, but maybe he would have been. It's pretty clear at this point that the Braves have been on him for a while and really, really like him.
 
They didn't go under slot to be cheap, they did it to spend more later. But in order to go under slot they passed on better talent.

Again, if Anderson was legitimately a top 3 talent then he should be the pick no matter if he was willing to go under slot or not. If he wanted full slot then I don't see any way he's the pick.

But the same logic holds for Wentz; if he were willing to sign for slot, he'd have been top 15., and writers have had Anderson going in the top 10 as recently as mid-May. I think you're seriously overrating the gap between Puk/Groome/Pint and Anderson/Wentz, and underrating the gap between Wentz and whoever we would've drafted at 40 if we'd taken one of the top-tier arms that would've required full slot at 3. I would completely agree with you if this draft were top-heavy, but it wasn't at all this year.
 
It's funny to see the Moniak pick praised while some are saying Anderson was a bad pick. A month ago these guys were in the same exact boat.

As far as Pint, I wanted to stay away. How many HS guys who throw 100 don't have TJ? Groome fell to the Sox so plenty of other teams passed on him (including San Diego at 8, who took Quantrill).

Moniak has been a top 10 guy for a several months now at least, not sure why you are comparing him to Anderson really, Moniak didn't come out of nowhere, he just went from a #6/#7 guy to being #1 over the past month.

I agree on Pint, I wanted nothing to do with him because I can't remember a guy who throws 100 anytime in the past 15-20 years that hasn't had arm issues.

I keep hearing about the makeup issues that made Groome drop ( and clearly they are the reason he dropped, along with signability concerns), but does anybody know what they are exactly? I'm curious.
 
Moniak has been a top 10 guy for a several months now at least, not sure why you are comparing him to Anderson really, Moniak didn't come out of nowhere, he just went from a #6/#7 guy to being #1 over the past month.

I agree on Pint, I wanted nothing to do with him because I can't remember a guy who throws 100 anytime in the past 15-20 years that hasn't had arm issues.

I keep hearing about the makeup issues that made Groome drop ( and clearly they are the reason he dropped, along with signability concerns), but does anybody know what they are exactly? I'm curious.

Moniak was rated similarly to Anderson, even below him according to some, a couple months ago. The only thing that changed in any fan's mind was the rankings. I guarantee you if the draft was a month from now and in that time Anderson climbed the rankings to top 5, there's not a single person who would be claiming we got a lesser talent. Fans' opinions will always be heavily influenced by the rankings.
 
Why? Joey Wentz and Kyle Muller are two of the best prep left handed pitchers in this draft. Both can touch the mid 90s with their fastball and have good secondary offerings. Both are among the best pure athletes at this position in the draft. They both can swing the bat as well. They were incredible picks!!

Not to start an irrelevant debate, but when you think of the great Braves' rotation of the 1990s, people tend to forget that Smoltz, Glavine, Avery, and (to some extent) Maddux were all superlative athletes.

Here's what David Rawnsey (one of the draft analysts over at Perfect Game whose opinion I respect) said about Anderson in the chat (free so not premium content): Good decision by the Braves. You kept hearing about the Braves wanting to try to slide Anderson to 40th. At the end of the day, you pick the guy you want first and adjust later. Anderson is a polished 3-pitch guy with plus stuff. Lots to like there. But few would have thought Anderson would be picked before Riley Pint and Jason Groome a few months ago.
 
Hopefully Cumberland can be serviceable behind the plate, because that would solve a huge need for us assuming scouts are right about his bat. Bridges compared him to Todd Hundley. I would certainly take that.
 
Why? Joey Wentz and Kyle Muller are two of the best prep left handed pitchers in this draft. Both can touch the mid 90s with their fastball and have good secondary offerings. Both are among the best pure athletes at this position in the draft. They both can swing the bat as well. They were incredible picks!!

I'm not a fan of taking HS arms at that point of the draft. Nolan Jones and Joe Rizzo were a couple options I would have preferred. I also like college pitchers at that point in the draft better than HS pitchers and there were some good ones available. Logan Shore for example was rated higher than Muller by BA.

It will be interesting to track the progress of the three college pitchers the A's took: Puk, Jeffries and Shore with our three. Different approaches.
 
If our first pick was 10 and we ended up signing these three, I'd be thrilled. I'd give this draft an A+. But I have about a dozen players ahead of Anderson. Anderson is very good but to me he's in the second tier of the first rounders in this draft.

Some people are acting like if we took Pint, Groome, or Puk at 3 we would lose the 40th and 44th picks or have to select utility infielders there. That's not the case. We were always going to get good talent there. People ignore that opportunity cost.

It wasn't a choice between one A+ player or three B+ players. It was a choice between three B+ players or one A+ player and two B- players.

I just don't like the strategy of reaching at 3 to get a small talent bump at 40.

If we had been drafting at 10, we'd have had $3.2 million less in our signing pool and wouldn't have been able to afford Wentz.

And getting Wentz isn't a small talent bump at 40; Sickels had him going top 15 or "possibly top 10" barring high signing demands.
 
So who do we take at #80 and #109

Austin Hayes
Heath Quinn
Cole Stobbe

if you want possible home run..
Kyle Funkhouser

then another name I forgot about..
Nick Banks
 
Back
Top