2016 DRAFT Signing Tracker ... FINAL, JULY 15

nsacpi said:
I've contended that we did not have a surplus of starting pitching. I think after this draft that is no longer the case. We took an abundance of promising arms: Anderson, Wentz, Muller, Harrison, Wilson, Walker, Rowland.

I have a pretty precise definition of how much is enough at the minor league level. It is based on two criteria. One is you want to produce or graduate one major league starter per year. The second is that you lose one prospect per level when it comes to starting pitching. So if you have 2 in AAA, one will make it. You also need 3 in AA, 4 in High A, 5 in Low A to be on that pace of one a year.

With the guys we took in this year's draft, I think our full season teams next year will have what is needed to produce or graduate one major league starter per year.
Click to expand...

I'll be curious to see what Danville's rotation will look like. I guess we can assume Hellinger and Suarez from last year's GCL team and probably Walker from the 2016 draft, but it will be interesting to see how they fill things in on top of that.
 
50PoundHead said:
I'll be curious to see what Danville's rotation will look like. I guess we can assume Hellinger and Suarez from last year's GCL team and probably Walker from the 2016 draft, but it will be interesting to see how they fill things in on top of that.
Click to expand...

I think Danville starts playing Thursday, so we should be finding out soon. My guess is Harrington, Walker, Suarez, Guardado, Hellinger and Gamez. That's six, but often they piggyback starters at that level.
 
nsacpi said:
I think Danville starts playing Thursday, so we should be finding out soon. My guess is Harrington, Walker, Suarez, Guardado, Hellinger and Gamez. That's six, but often they piggyback starters at that level.
Click to expand...

Forgot about Harrington. I wonder if Guardado is in the GCL again. He is extremely raw.
 
KB21 said:
The criticism of the Braves strategy with going under slot at the 3rd pick makes very little sense at all, and the argument that the draft could have been better had they targeted a player who wanted the entire slot value for the #3 pick makes even less sense.

This is a draft where there was no clear cut #1. The #1 pick in the draft was a guy who rated 10-15 in the draft just 3 months ago, and he is a prep bat who does not offer plus power potential. There was not a lot of separation between #1 and #15 in this draft. So, the Braves chose the avenue to get themselves multiple guys they had in their top 25. Had they gone the other route and drafted a guy who would have demanded his slot value at #3, then the Braves would have gotten one player who was in their top 25 and likely 2 that would not have been in their top 50 due to signability issues at 40 and 44. There likely would have been no Brett Cumberland and no high upside arm of Bryse Wilson either. No Matt Rowland.

You are fooling yourselves into thinking that there was a player that was so markedly better than Ian Anderson at #3 that the Braves screwed the pooch by not taking him. I'm not one that is going to delude myself into thinking that I know more than what the Braves scouts know, or that Baseball America or any other publication knows more than what they know.
Click to expand...

First of all, it's not like we'd forfeit our later picks by going heavier at 3. We'd still get very good players. We just wouldn't be able to go overslot as much.

Next, I doubt we'd have to go full slot on most of our options at 3. Maybe I'm wrong but I get the feeling that we'd probably be able to get whoever we wanted there for about $5 million. Considering what Anderson is rumored to be signing for, we'd probably come out about even if we paid $5 million at 3 and then went slot at 40 instead of getting Wentz.

So to me, getting Pint, Lewis, or Ray at 3 and going slot at 40 would be a better draft than getting Anderson and Wentz. I understand that I don't have all the info the Braves scouts have but that hardly means I can't disagree with the front office decisions.

I honestly would have been pumped to see us grab Lewis at 3 and then grab Muller and Alec Hansen at 40 and 44. Hansen is an enormous risk but has as high of an upside as any pitcher in the draft. I think that with some coaching he could be a dominant closer at worst and if you can get his control issues ironed out he's got ace stuff. But that's just my own personal preference.
 
striker42 said:
First of all, it's not like we'd forfeit our later picks by going heavier at 3. We'd still get very good players. We just wouldn't be able to go overslot as much.

Next, I doubt we'd have to go full slot on most of our options at 3. Maybe I'm wrong but I get the feeling that we'd probably be able to get whoever we wanted there for about $5 million. Considering what Anderson is rumored to be signing for, we'd probably come out about even if we paid $5 million at 3 and then went slot at 40 instead of getting Wentz.

So to me, getting Pint, Lewis, or Ray at 3 and going slot at 40 would be a better draft than getting Anderson and Wentz. I understand that I don't have all the info the Braves scouts have but that hardly means I can't disagree with the front office decisions.

I honestly would have been pumped to see us grab Lewis at 3 and then grab Muller and Alec Hansen at 40 and 44. Hansen is an enormous risk but has as high of an upside as any pitcher in the draft. I think that with some coaching he could be a dominant closer at worst and if you can get his control issues ironed out he's got ace stuff. But that's just my own personal preference.
Click to expand...

I agree... but I also think we could have gotten Lewis, Wents, and Muller
 
sturg33 said:
I agree... but I also think we could have gotten Lewis, Wents, and Muller
Click to expand...

yeah...but here is the thing about that.....the administration didn't like/want Lewis....you the FAN, did. I trust them and their evaluations...you know, since they worked him out in person and have much more experience that us.
 
I think the combination of not being 'blown away' by Lewis and being able to go further underslot to sign more studs later in the draft makes quite a bit of sense.

If you look at the pure slot values and the amount that Wentz/Cumberland/Muller/Harrington/Wilson signed for -- we ended up with a ton of talent. You can certainly argue that could happen regardless, but it seems to me we went hard after the strength of the draft which most experts agree wasn't at the top.

I'll be the first to admit that early in the process I didn't love this strategy, but it seemed to work out.
 
Groome > Anderson/Wentz/Muller --- I don't know, maybe

point is we can cock fight about this all day long, but we won't know until these guys get a few years of pro under them. We got what we got and now we are moving to signing some good players. If we missed our Trout we won't know about it until 2018 at the earliest.
 
Preacher said:
But would that have been better? It sounds like they aren't really sold on Lewis. You seem convinced that Lewis > Anderson; is that really the case?
Click to expand...

No idea if it would have been better. But it is my preference. Is that allowed around here these days? Or do we have to auto-assume the Johns are infallible
 
IowaBrave14 said:
yeah...but here is the thing about that.....the administration didn't like/want Lewis....you the FAN, did. I trust them and their evaluations...you know, since they worked him out in person and have much more experience that us.
Click to expand...

Yep... same geniuses who brought in Olivera and Nick the Stick
 
IowaBrave14 said:
yeah...but here is the thing about that.....the administration didn't like/want Lewis....you the FAN, did. I trust them and their evaluations...you know, since they worked him out in person and have much more experience that us.
Click to expand...

(this is also assuming Lewis signs for $4M at #3, which no one is remotely sure of).
 
Preacher said:
I think the combination of not being 'blown away' by Lewis and being able to go further underslot to sign more studs later in the draft makes quite a bit of sense.

If you look at the pure slot values and the amount that Wentz/Cumberland/Muller/Harrington/Wilson signed for -- we ended up with a ton of talent. You can certainly argue that could happen regardless, but it seems to me we went hard after the strength of the draft which most experts agree wasn't at the top.

I'll be the first to admit that early in the process I didn't love this strategy, but it seemed to work out.
Click to expand...

The strategy was fine but the avoidance of hitters continues to baffle me
 
sturg33 said:
The strategy was fine but the avoidance of hitters continues to baffle me
Click to expand...

There is no avoidance of hitters. They have drafted 9 players in the first two rounds over the last two years. 6 are pitchers, 3 are hitters. That is not an avoidance. It goes back to the Paul Snyder philosophy where if the arm and the bat are equal, take the arm.

Brian Bridges made a comment the other day that they did a lot of work on the college bats, but there simply wasn't a Manny Machado or Bryce Harper type of bat in this draft. Therefore, they went with the arm.
 
yeezus said:
(this is also assuming Lewis signs for $4M at #3, which no one is remotely sure of).
Click to expand...

I saw Callis was asked why Senzel was paid more than Moniak... and the answer was because if Moniak wasn't picked first, he would have slipped further... Unlike Senzel, who likely would have fallen to 3.

Same is true of Lewis.

We have irrefutable indisputable evidence that he was willing to forgo his college leverage to sign for $3.2M.

Now go on and do you your usual insults.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top