2019 MLB Draft Thread

I'm fine with Carroll at 9 and I know Fangraphs and Baseball America have both mentioned that we're connected to him. But I don't think he's an underslot guy at 9, at least not much of a savings that could help elsewhere. Kiley actually mentioned him being a potential guy with signability issues.
 
Super said:
is size really a detriment anymore? with all the success of "little" guys we've seen?
Click to expand...

I don't know if it's a detriment per se, I just think scouts still place a value on projected physicality due to long-term durability issues. Not saying they are right, but usually if it comes down to two-equally talented guys of different sizes, the nod usually goes to the bigger guy.
 
Last edited:
50PoundHead said:
I don't know if it's a detriment per se, I just think scouts still place a value on projected physicality due to long-term durability issues. Not saying they are right, but usually if it comes down to two-equally talented guys of different sizes, the nod usually goes to the bigger guy.
Click to expand...

i suppose. just not sure how much actual truth is to their feelings on that.
 
nsacpi said:
wondering about maybe signing someone under slot at 9 (like Carroll) and using the $ to sign Allen to an overslot deal at 21

we can't draft anyone with signability (or injury risk) issues with the #9 because we lose that pick if we fail to sign that player...this also reduces our leverage with that pick...so we have an incentive to go after a position player at that spot and also someone who we can have a deal in place with before the draft
Click to expand...

Why not just sign Allan at 9 if you can get a pre draft deal in place?

Allan is a mid teens guy in most projections so 9 isn't a huge reach. If you can get a pre draft deal in place for 9 then I think you should do that as opposed to playing leverage with him for over slot at 21.

Regardless, 9, whoever that is, pretty much has to be a pre draft deal otherwise the player's agent will eat the Braves alive over the "lose the pick" leverage.
 
Horsehide Harry said:
Thanks. However it doesn't say for sure if it is the same slot pick. For instance the Braves dropped from 8 to 9 for not signing Stewart. Do they drop from 9 to 10 if they don't sign this year? Or stay at 9? Or fall somewhere else?
Click to expand...

Believe the CBA states that you drop one spot when you don't sign someone, so I'd assume it would be 10th pick in 2020.
 
Guys, here is an awesome idea. Let's just draft completely unsignable guys for every pick before round 4 so that we will have like 6 or 7 top 100 picks next year. THEN lets do the same thing next year so we can have 10+. AND THEN....
 
Isn't the #9 sign or lose? That's why you might take a signability guy there, that's a lot of leverage for an agent.
 
BeanieAntics said:
Its the same idea we used in 2016 when we got 3 top 25 prospects despite two of our picks being in the 40s.
Click to expand...

Yes, but they took the arm they coveted at #3 and signed him under slot.

They then used the savings to sign guys they also liked to over slot deals.

They didn't let fate decide whether the guy they liked best fell to them. They went ahead and took him.

Allan = Ian Anderson. Not Joey Wentz.
 
Southcack77 said:
Yes, but they took the arm they coveted at #3 and signed him under slot.

They then used the savings to sign guys they also liked to over slot deals.

They didn't let fate decide whether the guy they liked best fell to them. They went ahead and took him.

Allan = Ian Anderson. Not Joey Wentz.
Click to expand...


It was certainly good scouting on the Braves' part, but I'm not sure that I buy the narrative that Anderson was the top guy on their board at the time when guys like Pint, Groome, Lewis, Rutherford, and Whitley were still on the board. Its obviously worked out well, but I'm skeptical that he was THE guy that they wanted at 3. It seems more like he was the guy that they wanted because they knew they could get him relatively cheaply and it would allow them to overspend on picks 40 and 44. Teams take players that aren't the BPA for that reason all the time.

This would be the same deal. Some teams will go overslot, some will go under, some highly ranked guys will fall, some lower ranked guys will be taken really highly. If one of the top 8 guys fall, then we should probably grab him. If not, I would seriously consider going underslot at 9 (with a guy like Carroll) and then try to pick up a higher upside guy like Allen or Baty at 21. A strategy like that might also allow us to be underslot overall after pick 9 and 21 so that we can also get a solid pick at 60 as well. Maybe we'll have enough left to pull a guy like Ealy or Hampton away from their football scholarship or something like that.
 
BeanieAntics said:
Guys, here is an awesome idea. Let's just draft completely unsignable guys for every pick before round 4 so that we will have like 6 or 7 top 100 picks next year. THEN lets do the same thing next year so we can have 10+. AND THEN....
Click to expand...

I know you didn't mean that but it's in fact not a horrible strategy given the way things currently work, so long as you're not punting top 5 picks.

Here's what I mean:

Say a team plans to blow out it's J2 pool (3-8 top end - (call it 5) guys) and expects to be limited in future years and they are picking 10th in the draft. It would put that team in a position to take an unsignable player (assuming they don't see something they really, really like) at 10 and ~45 and ~90 this year, then sign their 5 international top end guys. Then next year when they are limited on J2, they go into the draft with maybe 2 first round picks and 2 seconds and 2 thirds, assuming no competitive balance picks or comp picks for FA - call it a 5, 11, 42, 46, 80, 91.

A lot of the strategy would be with timing as well. Assume you know that you're headed for a rebuild like the Giants but you've got enough non tradeable veterans that drive your record to only 10th worst leading into your rebuild year. You finish off your previous window's death throws and pick 10th, but you know you're about to tear it down for a rebuild. Then you go hard J2, punt the current draft, then the next year concentrate on the draft with a ton of picks (helped by the tear down leading into a rebuild), then second year concentrate on the draft fueled by any picks from previous draft that didn't sign, then third year (after two year J2 limitations) your back on heavy J2 AND heavy draft (your payroll is low at this time), 5th year you go heavy on FA signings to fill in the holes leading into your opening window but don't give away any picks. At any time, if you run across a "gotta have him pick" then you take him. But you're not locked into a draft or else philosophy.
 
BeanieAntics said:
It was certainly good scouting on the Braves' part, but I'm not sure that I buy the narrative that Anderson was the top guy on their board at the time when guys like Pint, Groome, Lewis, Rutherford, and Whitley were still on the board. Its obviously worked out well, but I'm skeptical that he was THE guy that they wanted at 3. It seems more like he was the guy that they wanted because they knew they could get him relatively cheaply and it would allow them to overspend on picks 40 and 44. Teams take players that aren't the BPA for that reason all the time.

This would be the same deal. Some teams will go overslot, some will go under, some highly ranked guys will fall, some lower ranked guys will be taken really highly. If one of the top 8 guys fall, then we should probably grab him. If not, I would seriously consider going underslot at 9 (with a guy like Carroll) and then try to pick up a higher upside guy like Allen or Baty at 21. A strategy like that might also allow us to be underslot overall after pick 9 and 21 so that we can also get a solid pick at 60 as well. Maybe we'll have enough left to pull a guy like Ealy or Hampton away from their football scholarship or something like that.
Click to expand...


I don't want to get into all of that again. It's been debated. No one's mind is going to be changed about that scenario regardless of how it all ends up playing as far as talent performance.

What I'm saying is just that Anderson was the highest rated player the Braves took that year, even IF he was drafted there solely for signability reasons.

I think Allan is pretty highly likely to be the highest rated player the Braves draft if he ends up in Atlanta. He might fall to their second pick, but seems like a good chance he will not. The Braves dollar pool does change. I guess it's possible Allen's demand could change based on draft position but honestly the guy has a number and that's what it likely will take wherever he falls.
 
Horsehide Harry said:
I know you didn't mean that but it's in fact not a horrible strategy given the way things currently work, so long as you're not punting top 5 picks.

Here's what I mean:

Say a team plans to blow out it's J2 pool (3-8 top end - (call it 5) guys) and expects to be limited in future years and they are picking 10th in the draft. It would put that team in a position to take an unsignable player (assuming they don't see something they really, really like) at 10 and ~45 and ~90 this year, then sign their 5 international top end guys. Then next year when they are limited on J2, they go into the draft with maybe 2 first round picks and 2 seconds and 2 thirds, assuming no competitive balance picks or comp picks for FA - call it a 5, 11, 42, 46, 80, 91.

A lot of the strategy would be with timing as well. Assume you know that you're headed for a rebuild like the Giants but you've got enough non tradeable veterans that drive your record to only 10th worst leading into your rebuild year. You finish off your previous window's death throws and pick 10th, but you know you're about to tear it down for a rebuild. Then you go hard J2, punt the current draft, then the next year concentrate on the draft with a ton of picks (helped by the tear down leading into a rebuild), then second year concentrate on the draft fueled by any picks from previous draft that didn't sign, then third year (after two year J2 limitations) your back on heavy J2 AND heavy draft (your payroll is low at this time), 5th year you go heavy on FA signings to fill in the holes leading into your opening window but don't give away any picks. At any time, if you run across a "gotta have him pick" then you take him. But you're not locked into a draft or else philosophy.
Click to expand...


I may be wrong, but I don't believe the J2 draft works that way any more. There is a hard cap now. You can trade for a bigger money pool, but you can't really blow it out any more I don't think.
 
Southcack77 said:
I may be wrong, but I don't believe the J2 draft works that way any more. There is a hard cap now. You can trade for a bigger money pool, but you can't really blow it out any more I don't think.
Click to expand...

And those extra 2nd and 3rd round picks don’t net you much in pool money so really you are just punting a year of development and dropping one spot for no reason. I think you could employ HH strategy on the 1st round if there isn’t anything you like at that point. Grab a hard commit guy with talent and toss some money his way pretty much knowing he will pass. Anything after the first round seems neutral at best.
 
bravesfanMatt said:
And those extra 2nd and 3rd round picks don’t net you much in pool money so really you are just punting a year of development and dropping one spot for no reason. I think you could employ HH strategy on the 1st round if there isn’t anything you like at that point. Grab a hard commit guy with talent and toss some money his way pretty much knowing he will pass. Anything after the first round seems neutral at best.
Click to expand...

The rules change all the time and you have to change with them. I was working off what I understood the rules to be, which may or may not be in effect now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top