2019 MLB Draft Thread

[striker42]

lmao that's exactly what you've been doing. i'm dead

No, I've been judging based on the result. The results of our 2018 top 10 draft pick were not good. You don't want to draft someone you don't sign. So currently, the review of the 2018 draft has to be negative.

However, the game isn't over yet. They could make a terrific pick at 9 and not show any further signs of issues with their drafting. If this happens, the front office can be lauded for salvaging a bad situation.

Considering we have no idea of about 99.99% that goes on in the Braves draft process, results are about the only reliable way of judging the front office.

 

[striker42]

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. ???

I have no idea what your point is here.

I do think you're making some assumptions you can't make. You're assuming there were no red flags before the draft and that no other team knew of these. You're assuming the injury was the real reason the Braves were scared off and that it wasn't just a pretext.

There's no evidence one way or the other on a lot of things. Maybe some teams had observed Stewart's spin rate on his curve drop. Maybe there were warning signs that he was hurt. Maybe the injury had nothing to do with it. Maybe the Braves drafted Stewart and then found out he wasn't nearly as good as they thought and so dug up a minor injury as a pretext to try to get another pick in the next draft.

I can't tell you one way or the other. I can tell you the draft did not turn out as intended. I can tell you the Braves were involved in a dispute with a high profile draft pick (terrible optics). I can tell you there have been negative consequences from not signing our pick.

Since we really don't know what all went on, I choose to grade the front office poorly at this point based on the poor result.

 

[Tapate50]

I’d guess the flip of that was give him full slot then find out he was worse and not worth it?

Thats “better” to you?

 

[Super]

Since we really don't know what all went on, I choose to grade the front office poorly at this point based on the poor result.

it wasn't a poor result.
it certainly isn't a "big black eye." that's just dumb.
would a better result have been, as Tapate says above, to pay him whatever you were going to and THEN find out about an injury?
your point is a bad one. you're right, you have no real idea what happened. we can look at it now and say hm, his draft stock has taken a HUGE hit. so not signing him was actually good. if you want to "look at results." you're choosing to look at it a different way, for a clear agenda-supporting reason.

"it's a big black eye for the front office."
"i didn't say they did anything wrong."
these are two very contradictory statements, fyi

 

[Super]

No, I've been judging based on the result.

na you're not. the result is the braves are likely to get a better prospect with the pick this year than stewart. that's the result.
a bad result would have been to sign him and then have his stock take a huge hit once he's in your system. no thanks to that actually bad result.

 

[thewupk]

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.

Who besides hardcore Braves fans and Stewart's camp even know about the grievance? How many Braves fans even care at this point? Not even close to the same thing. Teams getting a pick back due to not signing someone happens quite often.

 

[bravesfanMatt]

Who besides hardcore Braves fans and Stewart's camp even know about the grievance? How many Braves fans even care at this point? Not even close to the same thing. Teams getting a pick back due to not signing someone happens quite often.

The casual fan doesn’t know crap. I agree. But that is what I am saying. The causal fan hears DOB saying we are under investigation and they get all uppity. Then never follow the case and think the FO are cheaters and bums. We all know it was not a huge deal. But I still say it was not good to get involved in another grievance so close to the coppy bull****. That was my point. I think you actually can have a case where the Braves did nothing wrong but also look bad at the same time.

 

[Enscheff]

I have no idea what your point is here.

I do think you're making some assumptions you can't make. You're assuming there were no red flags before the draft and that no other team knew of these. You're assuming the injury was the real reason the Braves were scared off and that it wasn't just a pretext.

There's no evidence one way or the other on a lot of things. Maybe some teams had observed Stewart's spin rate on his curve drop. Maybe there were warning signs that he was hurt. Maybe the injury had nothing to do with it. Maybe the Braves drafted Stewart and then found out he wasn't nearly as good as they thought and so dug up a minor injury as a pretext to try to get another pick in the next draft.

I can't tell you one way or the other. I can tell you the draft did not turn out as intended. I can tell you the Braves were involved in a dispute with a high profile draft pick (terrible optics). I can tell you there have been negative consequences from not signing our pick.

Since we really don't know what all went on, I choose to grade the front office poorly at this point based on the poor result.

Wait...what?

There was one, and only one, bit of new info the Braves got between the time they drafted him and the time they decided not to give him slot money: the MRI.

They didn't suddenly realize he wasn't good. That's insane. Everyone who needed to see him had already seen him many times before he was drafted. You think he threw a bullpen session for Clint Eastwood for the first time after the draft? Please....

They didn't suddenly acquire data on his spin rates that they didn't like. Where would that data even come from? Some lone wolf scout with portable Trackman data on his laptop he sold to the Braves after the draft?

Or did AA suddenly get tipped off by another team after the draft about these "red flags" the other team saw before the draft? Seems...unlikely.

They didn't like the MRI results, and refused to give him the cash. Someone put their reputation on the line to get Stewart drafted, and when the MRI showed issues, that person paid the price. Pretty simple conclusion to draw that requires almost zero leaps of logic.

 

[thewupk]

The casual fan doesn’t know crap. I agree. But that is what I am saying. The causal fan hears DOB saying we are under investigation and they get all uppity. Then never follow the case and think the FO are cheaters and bums. We all know it was not a huge deal. But I still say it was not good to get involved in another grievance so close to the coppy bull****. That was my point. I think you actually can have a case where the Braves did nothing wrong but also look bad at the same time.

It's possible. I honestly don't think anyone cares though. Could just be me.

 

[thewupk]

Wait...what?

There was one, and only one, bit of new info the Braves got between the time they drafted him and the time they decided not to give him slot money: the MRI.

They didn't suddenly realize he wasn't good. That's insane. Everyone who needed to see him had already seen him many times before he was drafted. You think he threw a bullpen session for Clint Eastwood for the first time after the draft? Please....

They didn't suddenly acquire data on his spin rates that they didn't like. Where would that data even come from? Some lone wolf scout with portable Trackman data on his laptop he sold to the Braves after the draft?

Or did AA suddenly get tipped off by another team after the draft about these "red flags" the other team saw before the draft? Seems...unlikely.

They didn't like the MRI results, and refused to give him the cash. Someone put their reputation on the line to get Stewart drafted, and when the MRI showed issues, that person paid the price. Pretty simple conclusion to draw that requires almost zero leaps of logic.

savage

 

[bravesfanMatt]

It's possible. I honestly don't think anyone cares though. Could just be me.

Probably not. Most have found another reason to complain. I personally didn’t like the grievance. I didn’t want another mlb investigation. But I think the puzzle pieces point to the former scouting directors doing something that lead to this. They got canned. It wasn’t a pretty look for the team but in the end I think we can come out winning if we nail these first 2 picks. The casual fans like you said have moved on and now wondering where this Webb kid came from and does he make Minter available to trade for Trout.

 

[Super]

the optics of the grievance mean absolutely nothing.

 

[Super]

Wait...what?

There was one, and only one, bit of new info the Braves got between the time they drafted him and the time they decided not to give him slot money: the MRI.

They didn't suddenly realize he wasn't good. That's insane. Everyone who needed to see him had already seen him many times before he was drafted. You think he threw a bullpen session for Clint Eastwood for the first time after the draft? Please....

They didn't suddenly acquire data on his spin rates that they didn't like. Where would that data even come from? Some lone wolf scout with portable Trackman data on his laptop he sold to the Braves after the draft?

Or did AA suddenly get tipped off by another team after the draft about these "red flags" the other team saw before the draft? Seems...unlikely.

They didn't like the MRI results, and refused to give him the cash. Someone put their reputation on the line to get Stewart drafted, and when the MRI showed issues, that person paid the price. Pretty simple conclusion to draw that requires almost zero leaps of logic.

yes. all of this.
the only person making assumptions on the situation was striker.

 

[striker42]

Wait...what?

There was one, and only one, bit of new info the Braves got between the time they drafted him and the time they decided not to give him slot money: the MRI.

They didn't suddenly realize he wasn't good. That's insane. Everyone who needed to see him had already seen him many times before he was drafted. You think he threw a bullpen session for Clint Eastwood for the first time after the draft? Please....

They didn't suddenly acquire data on his spin rates that they didn't like. Where would that data even come from? Some lone wolf scout with portable Trackman data on his laptop he sold to the Braves after the draft?

Or did AA suddenly get tipped off by another team after the draft about these "red flags" the other team saw before the draft? Seems...unlikely.

They didn't like the MRI results, and refused to give him the cash. Someone put their reputation on the line to get Stewart drafted, and when the MRI showed issues, that person paid the price. Pretty simple conclusion to draw that requires almost zero leaps of logic.

I don't know what all happened post draft and I don't think we'll ever know for sure with privacy issues surrounding Stewart's medical records.

People from Stewart's camp insisted that the medical professionals agreed the wrist issue was minor. In support of this is the fact that you rarely see a pitcher have his career derailed by wrist issues, even a curveball pitcher like Stewart. Stewart's camp seemed to think the Braves got "buyer's remorse" and tried to use the wrist issue to low ball him.

The Braves were officially silent as they couldn't talk about medical issues but leaks were that the official reason for their change of heart was the wrist issue.

Word was the Braves had the outline of a deal in place with Stewart before the draft. So what changed?

It could actually be the wrist injury changed the Braves' minds. That issue could be a major issue that will keep Stewart from being anything special.

Another explanation is that maybe there was a split in the Braves front office. Before the draft the pro-Stewart people held sway but something may have happened that gave the Stewart detractors AA's ear. Such dramatic changes can and do happen overnight in the business world. I've seen it firsthand. If there were people who didn't like Stewart and after the draft their voice gained more strength, it would explain the "buyers remorse." Remember, we did fire Bridges and Clark after the season.

Another possible explanation is that the Braves didn't do their homework. Whoever it was that made the call did so without all the information. After the pick was made it's possible that information the Braves had in hand but hadn't relied on came to light and thus you had "buyer's remorse". You'd think this would be an incredibly rare occurrence. Why would a team make that big of a move without making sure the decision makers had gone over everything twice. I remind you the Braves made two runs at Hector Olivera based on scraps of data and were burned by it badly.

Honestly, the most likely explanation is that the wrist issue made the Braves uncomfortable giving him $4 million when they had the fallback of getting the 9th pick this year. Occum's Razor would tell us that the Stewart camp's complaints are just sour grapes. However, we'll never know for sure.

I think it's silly to think we know everything that goes on in deals like that. It's why, as I've said countless times here, I judge based on results. After I see who we take at 9 this year, my take on the situation could totally change. It still could all work out tremendously well. It's just not a great situation.

 

[striker42]

yes. all of this.
the only person making assumptions on the situation was striker.

What am I assuming? I'm not assuming the Braves screwed up. If I did that I'd be much, much harsher on AA and co for this. I'm saying the draft grades out poorly. The Braves have a black eye from it in that they didn't sign their first rounder, they lost a year of development, they made it more costly to sign a FA with a QO, and they ended up in a dispute with a draft pick (a really bad look). That's a pretty bad result.

You can try to defend the FO and say they made the best possible decisions but no one here knows half of what went on behind the scenes. You have to assume that what we know is the real story. I think that's dangerous. I say judge on results and the result is currently bad.

That could totally change if they hit on the 9th pick but currently, the 2018 first round is bad for the Braves.

 

[Super]

so who's the one making assumptions again? the ones listed above are..dumb.

there's already been one positive result: a guy who's stock has tumbled wasn't signed as your 1st rd pick. you get a mulligan.
there's one less-than-ideal result: lost a year of development of a young player.

absolutely right in stating we don't know all the facts. which is why calling it a "big black eye" is nonsense. is it a great thing? no (but also like not signing that guy and getting to re-do the pick this year is kinda great in hindsight tbh).

the ideal situation was probably taking and signing Nolan Gorman. Stewart was a good pick at the time. the overwhelmingly likely situation was that, with more information not available until after the draft, the Braves soured a bit on Stewart due to the injury. this was *clearly* a good call considering he won't even go in the 1st round this year. once they got all the info, they (basically) made the decision not to sign him.

saying this was some major mistake by the FO is just driving an agenda.

 

[striker42]

so who's the one making assumptions again? the ones listed above are..dumb.

there's already been one positive result: a guy who's stock has tumbled wasn't signed as your 1st rd pick. you get a mulligan.
there's one less-than-ideal result: lost a year of development of a young player.

absolutely right in stating we don't know all the facts. which is why calling it a "big black eye" is nonsense. is it a great thing? no (but also like not signing that guy and getting to re-do the pick this year is kinda great in hindsight tbh).

the ideal situation was probably taking and signing Nolan Gorman. Stewart was a good pick at the time. the overwhelmingly likely situation was that, with more information not available until after the draft, the Braves soured a bit on Stewart due to the injury. this was *clearly* a good call considering he won't even go in the 1st round this year. once they got all the info, they (basically) made the decision not to sign him.

saying this was some major mistake by the FO is just driving an agenda.

Again, what assumption am I making? I'm saying I judge the FO based on results. The result of the first round pick was bad. The fact that it ended with us in a dispute with the draft pick is a black eye whether you like it or not.

Also, saying not signing Stewart was a good result is moving the goal posts. Once we drafted Stewart, that pick was a sunk cost and not signing him was the smart play. However, if you look at it from the point before the draft and compare that with now, you see things did not work out. No one goes into a draft saying "I sure hope I don't sign my first pick!"

I'm not saying that the Stewart thing was a major mistake. I'm saying it was a very bad result that we've not come out of looking good. The FO needs to be judged on the results. Currently that's bad. They have a chance to turn it around though. If they do, I'll laud them for salvaging it.

 

[Super]

What am I assuming? I'm not assuming the Braves screwed up. .

you called it a "big black eye." did you not? how is that "not assuming the Braves screwed up" to you?? what did you mean by that if you didn't mean to suggest the Braves screwed up?

your second paragraph is more nonsense. in hindsight the best possible decision was not drafting Stewart at all. brilliant. once he was drafted, since we only know what we know and the story we can lay out from what he know is extremely plausible (where as your brilliant theories are far more far fetched), the FO seemingly made the right choice. that is not a bad result. signing him would have been the objectively worse result. the fact he was injured was an unfortunate result.

your argument is just garbage. the Braves drafted a guy. found out after that he had an injury they didn't like. didn't want to sign him. didn't sign him. sure, ideally they would have drafted a guy with no injury. once they found out about it, not signing him and recouping the pick was the right choice.

whoever the Braves take at 9 this year will be a better prospect than Stewart will be at the same time. sounds good to me.

 

[thewupk]

What am I assuming? I'm not assuming the Braves screwed up. If I did that I'd be much, much harsher on AA and co for this. I'm saying the draft grades out poorly. The Braves have a black eye from it in that they didn't sign their first rounder, they lost a year of development, they made it more costly to sign a FA with a QO, and they ended up in a dispute with a draft pick (a really bad look). That's a pretty bad result.

You can try to defend the FO and say they made the best possible decisions but no one here knows half of what went on behind the scenes. You have to assume that what we know is the real story. I think that's dangerous. I say judge on results and the result is currently bad.

That could totally change if they hit on the 9th pick but currently, the 2018 first round is bad for the Braves.

The Braves signing a busted Carter would be an even worse result. And his injury is not something that would have been known beforehand. It's an unfortunate situation that the Braves made best of imo.

 

[Super]

Again, what assumption am I making? I'm saying I judge the FO based on results. The result of the first round pick was bad. The fact that it ended with us in a dispute with the draft pick is a black eye whether you like it or not.

Also, saying not signing Stewart was a good result is moving the goal posts. Once we drafted Stewart, that pick was a sunk cost and not signing him was the smart play. However, if you look at it from the point before the draft and compare that with now, you see things did not work out. No one goes into a draft saying "I sure hope I don't sign my first pick!"

I'm not saying that the Stewart thing was a major mistake. I'm saying it was a very bad result that we've not come out of looking good. The FO needs to be judged on the results. Currently that's bad. They have a chance to turn it around though. If they do, I'll laud them for salvaging it.

if you want to "judge results" then you need to wait, since the process of this isn't over. the result will be a better player than carter stewart is in the Braves' farm. that's the result.

another paragraph, your 2nd one here, that makes no sense at all. they didn't know certain things before taking him. so they took him. once they learned new information that they couldn't have known before the draft, they weren't keen on signing him. if only they could've predicted the future, and somehow found out about the injury beforehand even tho that wasn't possible. dammit!

how do you figure they can salvage it? will drafting a better player than stewart currently is "salvage" it for you? because that's almost a guarantee. how would they fail to "salvage" it for you?