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

KB21 said:
The Braves had this worked out before they did this. The Braves have a better scouting staff than Jeff Lunhow and the Astros, and they will not be caught with their pants down. The Braves prepared for this, and I'm betting they had an agreement in principle with the players before they drafted them.
Click to expand...

The Astros had an agreement in principle worked out with Nix as well. When they didn't like what they saw during his physical and he wouldn't take less money than they initially agreed to pay him, the whole thing fell apart.
 
KB21 said:
I think some need a refresher on the Paul Snyder/Bill Wight drafting philosophy, which is what the Braves have gone back to after abandoning that philosophy under Frank Wren. If the arm and the bat are rated equal, you take the arm. You should only take the bat when the arm is rated lower. There was not a hitting prospect available that was rated higher than either Joey Wentz or Kyle Muller when the Braves took them.

Joey Wentz was the #14 player on Perfect Game's draft board. Joe Rizzo was #49. Tell me, how much sense does it make to take Joe Rizzo over Joey Wentz? Kyle Muller was #48 on PG's board and #25 on BA's board. Joe Rizzo was #40 on BA's board.

Just for good measure, the #1 overall pick was the #11 player on PG's board. Ian Anderson was #9 on PGs board.

Here is a snippet from PG's write up on Ian Anderson:

Joey Wentz:
Click to expand...

Think striker should read this
 
SidSlid92 said:
Lewis signed for $3.2 million. Would he not have taken that from us at 3?
Click to expand...

The Braves were not taking Lewis regardless. If they had taken a bat, it was probably going to be Moniak, who went #1. I'm still not convinced that they were as high on Senzel as the media has made it seem. That's the type of pick that runs counter to the philosophy of this scouting staff. It's a pick you make when you are more concerned with the floor of a player and not a high upside ceiling.

The Braves have been following Ian Anderson since last fall though. I think it is pretty clear that he was a guy they rated highly.
 
clvclv said:
What puzzles me is why no one seems to understand the reason the players drafted yesterday were taken. The gamble you take in "floating" the guys we wound up with picks #40 and #44 is that someone doesn't sign and you lose ANY pool money. We have absolutely no clue how much Anderson supposedly agreed to sign for (and won't until June 23rd), but let's just GUESS that it's $4.5 million. That only saves $2,010,800 to be split between the lower picks. If you split that in half between Wentz and Muller, that's $1,005,400 above slot for each.

Wentz - $2,622,200

Muller - $2,465,100

IF Wentz had been picked where MLB Pipeline had him ranked (#16), his slot value would have been $2,660,800. ESPN had him at #11, which would have been $3,286,700.

We're already asking him to sign under-slot if you go by those rankings. If we don't sign EVERY other player drafted in the first ten rounds, we can't even afford to do that if they all agree to slot value - even with savings from Anderson. Unless we want the #41 pick in next years draft more than we want him, you have no choice other than to take guys that we KNOW we'll sign before today. If you don't - and lose Wentz' slot dollars - you may not get Muller or Cumberland either.

The Astros lost two players the same way when they tried to float Jacob Nix in 2014. When they didn't like the medicals and he wouldn't rework the numbers he agreed to prior to the draft, it cost them Nix AND Brady Aiken.
Click to expand...

I'm completely aware of why they did it. My fear is that we are putting our entire hope of a draft into three high school arms, which is easily the most risky to begin with. Between rounds 3-10, there's a HS arm that throws hard and then a bunch of senior signs that would've signed last year if they were any good.
 
CJ9 said:
And then we take BA's #496 player in the 11th. So much for signing someone who fell.
Click to expand...

Good grief, people. There's plenty of time to take tough signs. If they're going to stick around, then why take them early?

Also, I'm not sure how much of that we're going to do. The college seniors may have had more to do with making sure we are able to sign our first 4 picks.
 
smootness said:
Good grief, people. There's plenty of time to take tough signs. If they're going to stick around, then why take them early?

Also, I'm not sure how much of that we're going to do. The college seniors may have had more to do with making sure we are able to sign our first 4 picks.
Click to expand...

That's what I thought as well, especially with all of the math being posted on here
 
smootness said:
Good grief, people. There's plenty of time to take tough signs. If they're going to stick around, then why take them early?

Also, I'm not sure how much of that we're going to do. The college seniors may have had more to do with making sure we are able to sign our first 4 picks.
Click to expand...

But, Baseball America knows more about scouting these prospects than the Braves do.
 
CJ9 said:
And then we take BA's #496 player in the 11th. So much for signing someone who fell.
Click to expand...

I know we get caught up in the excitement of each guy picked, but how many 18-22 round picks end up making it to the majors? Percentage wise, not many, but there are always gems that seem to come out of nowhere.

There is no downside to signing these guys cheap, taking a look, and then moving them on if there is someone better waiting. There will be a few guys from this draft who will surprise, and that's why teams do it.
 
Our draft comes down to Anderson, Wentz, Muller and Cumberland. We spent the preponderance of our draft money on those 4, and we'll be fortunate if we happen to get anything at all from any other pick. My personal early opinion, while the 3 arms appear to have quite a high ceiling, overall I'm not too high on this draft mainly because we need impact bats badly, and other than maybe Cumberland, we came away empty. Therefore I'd have to grade this draft at best a C and probably more likely a D.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top