Official pre-Draft thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
clvclv said:
Although it'll drive some folks crazy, I'm not sure Bukauskas might not be a really good fit. He's going to move FAST, and could conceivably be ready to help the rotation as early as late 2018. Being able to add someone that quickly suddenly frees you up to trade an arm (or two or three) for a serious bat. If you believe in Fried and Allard and Gohara (which I do), taking J. B. if he's there at #5 suddenly makes swapping an arm or two for Moustakas and extending him to solve 3B sure makes A LOT of sense.

If the Royals don't start playing much better really soon, DMGM would be crazy not to take Newcomb for Moose straight up IMO. That still leaves us the 3 lefties mentioned above, Bukauskas, and Soroka - all of whom should be ready to step in by 2019 at the latest, plus Weigel, Sims, Touki and last year's draftees.
Click to expand...

I like Bukauskas a lot, and I'm glad he's actually taking the next step this spring. My fear is some people are pegging him with a decent reliever risk. Most of it seems to stem from him being short though, since most reports on the changeup this spring are really positive. The fastball-slider combo is ridiculous. I strongly want a bat, but I'd still be plenty happy with Greene (not happening) or Bukauskas.
 
nsacpi said:
I don't mean for the template to be so inflexible as to preclude taking certain types of players in certain parts of the draft. But I do think if historically you tend to have the most success with high school hitters in rounds 2 and 3 and the least success with high school pitchers in those rounds you should take that information into account. I was really struck at the time of the 2015 draft how much it conformed to that kind of analysis. Given the 2016 draft, it is obvious that the Braves are not rigidly adhering to a template of that kind. The point of my post was that the success of the 2015 draft reinforces the case I laid out (which is based on data from prior drafts).
Click to expand...

But the HS pitchers we took in the 2nd round last year weren't really 2nd round picks, so it's a bit of a stretch to me to say that it would have been better to go HS hitters there because 2nd round HS pitchers don't fare as well. They were taken in the 2nd round but at least Wentz was considered a 1st round pick by most.

I'm also a bit curious as to what you mean by the outcomes so far reinforcing going upside with your first pick. I agree with going upside with your first pick, but I'm not sure the results so far indicate Allard has a clearly higher ceiling than Anderson or that he was a clearly better pick.
 
smootness said:
But the HS pitchers we took in the 2nd round last year weren't really 2nd round picks, so it's a bit of a stretch to me to say that it would have been better to go HS hitters there because 2nd round HS pitchers don't fare as well. They were taken in the 2nd round but at least Wentz was considered a 1st round pick by most.

I'm also a bit curious as to what you mean by the outcomes so far reinforcing going upside with your first pick. I agree with going upside with your first pick, but I'm not sure the results so far indicate Allard has a clearly higher ceiling than Anderson or that he was a clearly better pick.
Click to expand...

Allard was the high upside pick available in 2015....i don't think the same could be said of Anderson
 
nsacpi said:
Allard was the high upside pick available in 2015....i don't think the same could be said of Anderson
Click to expand...

Anderson was certainly an upside pick. If anything, it was the risk associated with him being a barely scouted HS RHP that had him fly under the radar.
 
Yeah, I'll be honest, I just don't get this narrative around Anderson. He wasn't rated as high as 3 by most people entering the draft, but that in no way means he didn't have the same upside as any of those guys. You can argue best value if you want, but Anderson has as high a ceiling as anybody taken around him in the draft.
 
smootness said:
? We're 33 games into the season now. Kendall is slashing .309/.394/.604 with 10 HR. The problem is, he's striking out a ton and doesn't have a ton of steals. I'm not sure I want him at 5.
Click to expand...

For reference, at the same school and at the same age, Swanson posted a .335/.423/.623 (1.046 OPS) with 15 HRs, 16/18 in SBs, and a BB:K ratio of nearly 1:1 (43:54). He will probably settle in as a sub-.800 OPS guy with double digit steals at the MLB level.

Kendall is currently slashing .309/.394/.604 (.998 OPS) with 10 HRs, 13/16 in SBs, and a pretty ugly BB:K ratio of 18:40. He appears to be lesser offensively than Swanson and has contact issues...not exactly the top of the lineup prospect you want in a "speedy" CFer taken #5 in the draft. Unless he is an Ender-level defender in CF, I don't want him at 5 either.
 
I'd like to take Royce Lewis or Austin Beck if that works out. That would put them on the same timeline as Maitan and the IFA class in GCL/Danville this year and hopefully Rome next year.
 
Just to add on... Anderson wasn't a low-upside pick.

The kid was a 6-3 HS righty with a plus fastball, good slider and an average changeup at 18. People may not have liked Ian>Kyle -- but IA has a lot of upside.
 
smootness said:
Yeah, I'll be honest, I just don't get this narrative around Anderson. He wasn't rated as high as 3 by most people entering the draft, but that in no way means he didn't have the same upside as any of those guys. You can argue best value if you want, but Anderson has as high a ceiling as anybody taken around him in the draft.
Click to expand...

his willingness to sign significantly below slot is a hint
 
Enscheff said:
For reference, at the same school and at the same age, Swanson posted a .335/.423/.623 (1.046 OPS) with 15 HRs, 16/18 in SBs, and a BB:K ratio of nearly 1:1 (43:54). He will probably settle in as a sub-.800 OPS guy with double digit steals at the MLB level.

Kendall is currently slashing .309/.394/.604 (.998 OPS) with 10 HRs, 13/16 in SBs, and a pretty ugly BB:K ratio of 18:40. He appears to be lesser offensively than Swanson and has contact issues...not exactly the top of the lineup prospect you want in a "speedy" CFer taken #5 in the draft. Unless he is an Ender-level defender in CF, I don't want him at 5 either.
Click to expand...

I personally like Kendall much more than someone like Corey Ray, who many on here wanted at No. 3 in last year's draft. Kendall's offensive profile is similar to Ray's was/is, but Kendall is much better defensively than Ray could dream of being.
 
Carp said:
I personally like Kendall much more than someone like Corey Ray, who many on here wanted at No. 3 in last year's draft. Kendall's offensive profile is similar to Ray's was/is, but Kendall is much better defensively than Ray could dream of being.
Click to expand...

Ray would have been a disaster of a pick the way he has started.
 
Remember all the criticism for the Soroka pick? We will see the same back and forth this year as well regardless of who the braves pick.
 
nsacpi said:
his willingness to sign significantly below slot is a hint
Click to expand...

No, it isn't.

This is what I'm talking about. People have equated 'projected 13th and taken 3rd' or 'signed for $2 mil under slot' with 'lacks upside.' But it isn't the case at all. He was projected lower because he was younger and had less of a track record than the guys ahead of him, not because he lacked the same upside.

Did Ronald Acuna sign for $100,000 because he lacked upside? Of course not. Or looking at this year's draft, if Kendall is drafted higher or signs for more money than Adell, does that mean he has more upside? No, Adell clearly has more upside. He is just younger, with less of a track record, further away from the majors, and more risk.

Your value is basically your talent against your risk, assuming those things have been evaluated properly. So the reason Anderson signed for less is because we could go to him and say, 'Look, you're projected here, which would slot for this money. If we take you at 3, we'll offer you this. Will you take it?' Coming back by saying, 'No, because I have more talent than that' wouldn't make sense. It's not about talent, it's about where you're likely to go otherwise.

Value and upside are not the same thing. Mallex Smith and Luiz Gohara may have similar values. Gohara clearly has more upside. Anderson has a ton of upside, the idea that he's a Mike Minor is insane.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top