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

smootness said:
Your response to a poster saying they probably weren't upset that certain players didn't fall and were prepared to just take the best talent all along was to say that we know they wanted Trammell at 40. You weren't presenting that as an opinion.
Click to expand...

I've read this 4 times and can't decipher what you're trying to say.
 
It's a properly structured sentence, just not worded well. Read the 'Your response...was to say that we know they wanted Trammell at 40' as one thought and the stuff in between as the previous post I was referencing.
 
Julio3000 said:
Yeah, it's just got a bit of a "we've always been at war with Eastasia" vibe to it. I mean, I take the point that there's no indication that we missed someone we had to have, but, really, under what circumstances WOULDN'T you say the section I bolded?

And hell, weren't you on the "Take everything the FO says with a grain of salt" tip?
Click to expand...

I'm not talking about their public comments.

Plus, as Matt referenced above, there are many people who think the Braves either won the draft or at least did extremely well. It would be much harder to believe the FO wasn't ecstatic under those circumstances.
 
I'm guessing they had a list of guys they would've liked to fall, and maybe they were hoping one of the bats on their list was there. still think they're legitimately plenty happy to get Wentz and Muller however.
 
To change the subject, it's funny to me to see people talk about Delvin Perez being a steal talent-wise at 23 and only have moral issues over it or question whether the Cardinals sent the right message.

How do we know it was a steal talent-wise? The guy has been on PEDs. How long? We have no idea, but there's not much reason to think he just starting taking them. There's a very good chance Perez is more the product of what he was taking than simply his natural talent level. When Schaefer tested positive, my concern wasn't that he was suspended and would miss games...it was that perhaps his status as a prospect was achieved despite his true talent, not because of it.

I just don't get why people assume Perez is actually the player he seems to be. I wouldn't take him at 23, or 30, or 50, but it's because I wouldn't feel confident in what I was actually getting.

Also, it's hilarious to see the Angels get an F considering their already horrifically bad farm system.
 
smootness said:
To change the subject, it's funny to me to see people talk about Delvin Perez being a steal talent-wise at 23 and only have moral issues over it or question whether the Cardinals sent the right message.

How do we know it was a steal talent-wise? The guy has been on PEDs. How long? We have no idea, but there's not much reason to think he just starting taking them. There's a very good chance Perez is more the product of what he was taking than simply his natural talent level. When Schaefer tested positive, my concern wasn't that he was suspended and would miss games...it was that perhaps his status as a prospect was achieved despite his true talent, not because of it.

I just don't get why people assume Perez is actually the player he seems to be. I wouldn't take him at 23, or 30, or 50, but it's because I wouldn't feel confident in what I was actually getting.

Also, it's hilarious to see the Angels get an F considering their already horrifically bad farm system.
Click to expand...

do we know it was PED? could have been Adderall for all we know.. unless I missed something.. That being said, I was never really high on Perez.
 
smootness said:
It's a properly structured sentence, just not worded well. Read the 'Your response...was to say that we know they wanted Trammell at 40' as one thought and the stuff in between as the previous post I was referencing.
Click to expand...

Ah, that's because I wasn't quoting us wanting Trammel as my opinion but based on the Grant McCauley report. One I see no reason to disbelieve as I would probably rather have Trammel than Wentz (don't read this as disparaging of Wentz).

Clearly the opinion part is the speculation about the strategy. As you're fond of pointing out, none of us knows if we're right or not. However it's the taking the bits and pieces lying around and piecing them together that's the fun part.
 
bravesfanMatt said:
do we know it was PED? could have been Adderall for all we know.. unless I missed something.. That being said, I was never really high on Perez.
Click to expand...

all I was able to find was that it wasn't a "drug of abuse" but a PED. I haven't been able find out if it was HGH, a steroid, adderall...etc
 
striker42 said:
Ah, that's because I wasn't quoting us wanting Trammel as my opinion but based on the Grant McCauley report. One I see no reason to disbelieve as I would probably rather have Trammel than Wentz (don't read this as disparaging of Wentz).

Clearly the opinion part is the speculation about the strategy. As you're fond of pointing out, none of us knows if we're right or not. However it's the taking the bits and pieces lying around and piecing them together that's the fun part.
Click to expand...

I was a huge Lewis fan, HOWEVER, if June 8th you would have told me the Braves could have Anderson, Wentz and Muller with their first 3 picks, no questions asked, free pass style, I would have said "hell yes!" that's 3 of the top prep arms in the nation. Sure we need bats, but by the time 2020 comes around (when most draft picks from this year will be in MLB) who knows what our needs will be?
 
bravos4evr said:
I was a huge Lewis fan, HOWEVER, if June 8th you would have told me the Braves could have Anderson, Wentz and Muller with their first 3 picks, no questions asked, free pass style, I would have said "hell yes!" that's 3 of the top prep arms in the nation. Sure we need bats, but by the time 2020 comes around (when most draft picks from this year will be in MLB) who knows what our needs will be?
Click to expand...

what I said you could have Lewis/Wentz/Muller ?
 
smootness said:
I'm not talking about their public comments.

Plus, as Matt referenced above, there are many people who think the Braves either won the draft or at least did extremely well. It would be much harder to believe the FO wasn't ecstatic under those circumstances.
Click to expand...

I assume our draft was fine, and that we're happy with it. I'm not suggesting otherwise. I'm saying the following:

1) That there is no evidence either way that we were or were not targeting someone else, or that we were or were not going to take Anderson planning on having a bat we wanted fall to 40.
2) That what our FO says means ****-all, because they'd say the same thing regardless.
3) That I'm not sure exactly what would have to transpire before you wouldn't accept the company line.

As for #2, I thought I remembered you saying that we should take everything the FO said with a grain of salt. If I'm understanding that correctly, I wonder why I'm supposed to apply that logic to their public statements about the team this offseason but not to their comments about efficacy of their draft strategy.
 
So I had a bit of a fun experience, I had a long hiking trip -- with basically zero cell service since Thursday; very exciting to log on today and see the entirety of the draft laid out in front of me.

I also read through this 70 page thread, which consisted largely of a couple people just repeating themselves.

A couple thoughts;

- Initially disappointed we didn't grab Groome, that's been my dude since the beginning.
- Very happy to see the Braves go BPA at 40/44 and not reach for a bat.
- I never loved the strategy of saving at #3 to spend more later in the draft, but I must say -- it seemed to work out very well. That's three elite talents the Braves picked up.

All in all, I'm pretty happy with the haul, didn't love the Harrington pick after seeing we went overslot on him.
 
bravos4evr said:
I woulda peed muh drawers!
Click to expand...

it seems plausible to very likely since Lewis signed for 3.2... That was slot value for that pick, so I think he would have asked for more if he was picked #3.. but I think they could have made the numbers work. I just think, they didn't trust Lewis's numbers in a week league.
 
bravesfanMatt said:
it seems plausible to very likely since Lewis signed for 3.2... That was slot value for that pick, so I think he would have asked for more if he was picked #3.. but I think they could have made the numbers work. I just think, they didn't trust Lewis's numbers in a week league.
Click to expand...

I really doubt they could have gotten Lewis for much more than a little under slot. I don't want to be disagreeable, but I think Lewis, Wentz, Muller would not have been possible with Lewis at 3. So, in essence, would you trade Lewis for Anderson and one of Wentz and Muller?

I would have loved to get a good hitter with one of the picks, but with the Braves having doubts about Lewis, I am not sure trading him for Anderson and Wentz would have truly been better.
 
mfree80 said:
I really doubt they could have gotten Lewis for much more than a little under slot. I don't want to be disagreeable, but I think Lewis, Wentz, Muller would not have been possible with Lewis at 3. So, in essence, would you trade Lewis for Anderson and one of Wentz and Muller?

I would have loved to get a good hitter with one of the picks, but with the Braves having doubts about Lewis, I am not sure trading him for Anderson and Wentz would have truly been better.
Click to expand...

Posted this in the other thread... but don't want to derail it

Not sure it matters...

Those first 3 picks had $9,587,300 in slot value.

Wentz is going for 3,050,000, and Muller for 2,500,000.

That leaves us with $4,037,300 to sign Lewis... which is essentially like being drafted 6th. Not to mention not doing things like going over slot on Harrington.

I think it's a stretch to say that Lewis was willing to sign for $3.2M, but would have been unwilling to sign for $4+M
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top