2019 MLB Draft Thread
- Thread starter CJ9
- Start date
Horsehide Harry
<B>Mr. Free Trade</B>
It should have been Gorman all the way. One of the youngest players in the draft. One of the best available. A need position, even considering 4 years development time (Donaldson for 1-3 years, Riley for a 1-3 years depending on Donaldson, then option to push Riley to 1B or Gorman to 1B). Signable.
But they fell in love with Stewart and missed the injury part then low balled him. Sure, you get the 1st rounder this year but the rules associated with that pick (sign or lose in 2019, pushing the third pick (or the one lost for signing a QO FA) to the second round) have had all kinds of reverberating effects in all likelihood.
zbhargrove
Well-known member
I don't see how. He hid the information about the injury and it showed up on the physical. We didn't lose the pick and it turns out that maybe his injury was, in fact, a real problem as scouting reports on him this year are less than optimistic. We are likely going to end up with a much better player. We also won the ruling against Stewart. How was this a black eye?
CyYoung31
Shift Leader
Because it supports his crusade against AA.
zbhargrove
Well-known member
Anyone is going to miss an "injury part" when the player doesn't disclose the information. And because of HIPPA, there's no way an organization can learn about an injury unless the prospect decides to talk about it. Its likely that no one outside of Carter's camp even knew there was an injury. You're ridiculously overblowing the "rules associated with that pick" part. But.... oooo the chills.... "reverberating effects"... lmao. There were plenty of question marks about Gorman at draft time. Many didn't think Stewart would go as low as he did.
This is some truly mind-blowing analysis. It's almost like looking backward and seeing that one of them is tearing up A-ball while the other has been injured and not nearly as good is easy.
striker42
Well-known member
You can try to make the excuses for the front office in this but at the end of the day it's the results that matter. We ended up delaying our pick a year (a year's delay of development) and picking a spot lower. Also, by having the two first round picks this year it has made our second round pick vulnerable to loss if we signed a FA with a QO (see Kimbrel).
I think the issue here is that you're comparing the actual result with what the result would have been had we signed Stewart. I'm comparing the actual result with the result you expect from a top 10 selection (getting a top prospect).
So you can argue that the front office isn't at fault. That there was no way they could have known about Stewart's issues. All of that. But at the end of the day that pick was a fiasco and the front office is ultimately judged on results.
That being said, they could redeem themselves if they grab someone at 9 this year who really works out for them. They'll still be judged on the end result. It's just that right now, the result is less than ideal.
Keith Law just put out his top 50 draft rankings for subscribers: http://insider.espn.com/mlb/insider/story/_/id/26634346/ranking-top-50-2019-mlb-draft-prospects
Normal top two of Rutschman and Vaughn, then four HS players (Witt, Corbin Carroll, Abrams, Greene), then college hitters Bleday and Bishop, then college arms Manoah and Lodolo.
Still over a month away from the draft, but it really looks like we need to be rooting for Manoah and/or Lodolo to go before our pick, which would let one of the bats fall to 9.
The most interesting part of those rankings to me is Corbin Carroll at 4. That's easily the highest I've seen him. Law's writeup raises some interesting points about concerns over Carroll's size: "Carroll gets raves for his athleticism, speed, feel to hit and range in center field, and he has the hand strength and swing to get to above-average power down the road. In fact, his arm is the only tool that doesn't project to more than average. He's 5-foot-10 and a bit small, which I keep hearing as a negative, but if he were 6-foot-3 he'd be in the mix to go first overall. Given how many hitters who are under 6 feet but have the hand and wrist strength to drive the ball are succeeding in the majors now, this should be a non-issue."
Normal top two of Rutschman and Vaughn, then four HS players (Witt, Corbin Carroll, Abrams, Greene), then college hitters Bleday and Bishop, then college arms Manoah and Lodolo.
Still over a month away from the draft, but it really looks like we need to be rooting for Manoah and/or Lodolo to go before our pick, which would let one of the bats fall to 9.
The most interesting part of those rankings to me is Corbin Carroll at 4. That's easily the highest I've seen him. Law's writeup raises some interesting points about concerns over Carroll's size: "Carroll gets raves for his athleticism, speed, feel to hit and range in center field, and he has the hand strength and swing to get to above-average power down the road. In fact, his arm is the only tool that doesn't project to more than average. He's 5-foot-10 and a bit small, which I keep hearing as a negative, but if he were 6-foot-3 he'd be in the mix to go first overall. Given how many hitters who are under 6 feet but have the hand and wrist strength to drive the ball are succeeding in the majors now, this should be a non-issue."
Horsehide Harry
<B>Mr. Free Trade</B>
Go back and look at what I was saying leading up to last years draft then get back to me.
lol you are something else
striker42
Well-known member
Judging based on results is bad? Right now the results aren't good. It absolutely could still work out great and if it does then the front office will come out of it looking great. However, the results right now are bad. You don't want a top 10 pick to work out like this one has.
they drafted a guy who had an injury that no one knew about until after the draft. therefore they didn't offer him what he thought he was going to get and didn't sign. is it ideal? no. is it a black eye on the front office? uh..no. the pick isn't lost and stewart's stock has plummeted. not sure what you would have preferred here - seeing the future is not an option.
Tapate50
Well-known member
It was a great pick based on the info we had available . Not sure how that’s bad
50PoundHead
Hessmania Forever
Using a very tortured analogy, I would say the selection of Stewart is like picking up a gorgeous woman in a bar, taking her back to your place, and just when things start getting physical, she utters "Oh, by the way. I'm married to a really jealous a-hole and if he finds out about his, he'll kill us both." Depending on the urgency of the moment, you still might go ahead, but there wouldn't be a bright future ahead.
striker42
Well-known member
As I said before, we've missed a year of development, moved down a spot, and subjected a second rounder to being lost by signing someone like Kimbrel. There were negative results. Ultimate you have to judge your front office on results.
If it was purely just incredible bad luck with Stewart, then the front office should be able to rectify it with a good pick this year and shouldn't see this problem occur again in the future. In that case, this becomes a non-issue. You can write it off as bad luck and move on.
However, if they screw up with the 9th pick or if AA continues his pattern of not signing first rounders (happened multiple times in Toronto) then you can't just write this incident off. It might be that it's a symptom of worse problems.
Honestly, we don't know all that went on with Stewart leading up to the draft. It's possible there was nothing anyone could have done to raise red flags about Stewart. However, it's also possible someone missed something. I'm not just going to assume that our front office did everything right. I'm also not going to assume they did something wrong.
Ultimately, I'm going to judge the front office on results. Over time, the results will tell the story.
lmao that's exactly what you've been doing. i'm dead
1. Stewart "falls" to Braves, Braves select him
2. Apparent injury is found. Braves scared off, offer Stewart the minimum needed to get pick this year
3. Braves and Stewart cannot come to terms.
4. Stewart and agent try to prove Braves did not offer minimum amount
5. MLB finds no wrongdoing on Braves' end
6. Striker: "The Stewart debacle is a big black eye for the front office."
7. Striker: "I'm not going to assume (the front office) did something wrong."
8. ???
2. Apparent injury is found. Braves scared off, offer Stewart the minimum needed to get pick this year
3. Braves and Stewart cannot come to terms.
4. Stewart and agent try to prove Braves did not offer minimum amount
5. MLB finds no wrongdoing on Braves' end
6. Striker: "The Stewart debacle is a big black eye for the front office."
7. Striker: "I'm not going to assume (the front office) did something wrong."
8. ???
bravesfanMatt
Steve Harvey'd
I don’t think it is wrong to say the whole debacle was not a good look for the Braves, even if they didn’t do anything wrong. Never good to have your name associated with a grievance. Similar to a sports athlete getting accused of rape and then being found innocent. The fact is that many people will always associate that guy as a rapist, even though he didn’t do anything.