BRAVES FINAL DRAFT SIGNING BOARD: Backstrom on board!

Even if none of these guys make it, the lower minors will at least have some interest again for a while. Selfishly I'm happy about that.
 
Super said:
lol what
Click to expand...


I probably should explain that more. I used fangraphs as the source because it's free and they tend to stray away from grade inflation.

I discounted the 11th round pick, because that's a spot where teams typically over-sign regardless of strategy. Grissom is rated a 40 FV, so that probably is worthy of objecting to as far as method.

For the rest of day 3 they drafted four 35 FV prospects, one of whom (Riley King) has already stated he will not sign.

That's what their undersigns on Days 1 and 2 yielded on Day 3.

Given that the draft will almost certainly come down to the first two days, in all probability, that's not a tremendous number of wild cards.

The biggest hopes aren't unknown players. They are guys that were well known and scouted and were obviously pretty signable. Yet 29 other teams elected not to make them a priority.

It's cool if everyone wants to be excited about them and follow them. I'll probably follow them and hope for the stars as well. Folks declaring the strategy has been vindicated...err...let's wait and see. It's not exactly hard to not spend on your top picks and float money down to get more guys.

The draft is usually about the first few rounds. It probably will be this with group as well.
 
Southcack77 said:
The draft is usually about the first few rounds. It probably will be this with group as well.
Click to expand...

with a typical strategy, yeah.
this is way different strategy tho. i don't think anything has been vindicated. but i can see the logic behind the approach and i don't think they made mistakes with their first 2 picks to execute it, either. i think they still took guys they like that have upside and were able to save and float in the process.

we shall see.
 
Super said:
with a typical strategy, yeah.
this is way different strategy tho. i don't think anything has been vindicated. but i can see the logic behind the approach and i don't think they made mistakes with their first 2 picks to execute it, either. i think they still took guys they like that have upside and were able to save and float in the process.

we shall see.
Click to expand...

I'm not hating on the first two days.

I will say it was an oddly constructed group, but I don't have major objections to the picks expect perhaps Phillip.
 
Super said:
with a typical strategy, yeah.
this is way different strategy tho. i don't think anything has been vindicated. but i can see the logic behind the approach and i don't think they made mistakes with their first 2 picks to execute it, either. i think they still took guys they like that have upside and were able to save and float in the process.

we shall see.
Click to expand...

I've got no problem with the strategy as an approach. It's the execution that I question. I don't like taking the college players early and underslotting THEM. In theory you've had more years to see a college player and therefore should be more sure as to what they will ultimately be so signing them for underslot is more of a money saving move than a projection gamble where you save some money.

And, the Braves don't have much in the position player need department in the next 3-4 years given how the ML team is constructed and the higher minors position players align.

If they were going to take this strategy, I would have preferred to see them take very young HS players that they could underslot but still possibly find upside that projects from future growth and maturity.
 
Horsehide Harry said:
I've got no problem with the strategy as an approach. It's the execution that I question. I don't like taking the college players early and underslotting THEM. In theory you've had more years to see a college player and therefore should be more sure as to what they will ultimately be so signing them for underslot is more of a money saving move than a projection gamble where you save some money.

And, the Braves don't have much in the position player need department in the next 3-4 years given how the ML team is constructed and the higher minors position players align.

If they were going to take this strategy, I would have preferred to see them take very young HS players that they could underslot but still possibly find upside that projects from future growth and maturity.
Click to expand...

i think Langeliers has plenty of upside tho. they clearly liked him, and apparently there are analytics to support the upside view. if you like a guy a lot AND he helps you save a lot to float money down to a lot of guys with upside, then that could work out.
i'm not sure which HS guys with high upside could've been taken there and signed for almost a million under slot, either. seems you would have to reach quite a bit for that scenario since there's more leverage against you.
i think it's a delicate process, and the fact they came out with two solid players they seemingly liked a lot while still floating lots of money down seems like a good outcome.
we shall see.
 
Super said:
i think Langeliers has plenty of upside tho. they clearly liked him, and apparently there are analytics to support the upside view. if you like a guy a lot AND he helps you save a lot to float money down to a lot of guys with upside, then that could work out.
i'm not sure which HS guys with high upside could've been taken there and signed for almost a million under slot, either. seems you would have to reach quite a bit for that scenario since there's more leverage against you.
i think it's a delicate process, and the fact they came out with two solid players they seemingly liked a lot while still floating lots of money down seems like a good outcome.
we shall see.
Click to expand...


Think there is a decent chance Priester or Allen would have signed for 4m even at #9.

I think Espino, Malone, and the college guys probably would have signed for that also. I guess we're waiting to see what Rutledge does, but he seems like a guy who probably would be ready to go ahead and get it over with. But he's not signed yet, so perhaps not.

I agree that Langeliers has more upside than he's given credit for. He would not have rated in top 20 picks if he didn't have offensive upside.
 
Southcack77 said:
Think there is a decent chance Priester or Allen would have signed for 4m even at #9.

I think Espino, Malone, and the college guys probably would have signed for that also. I guess we're waiting to see what Rutledge does, but he seems like a guy who probably would be ready to go ahead and get it over with. But he's not signed yet, so perhaps not.

I agree that Langeliers has more upside than he's given credit for. He would not have rated in top 20 picks if he didn't have offensive upside.
Click to expand...

maybe, maybe not. they probably knew the player's numbers. and maybe they preferred Lang to Priester and Allen, which i wouldn't blame them for.
i also wanted no part of Bishop, personally.
 
Southcack77 said:
I probably should explain that more. I used fangraphs as the source because it's free and they tend to stray away from grade inflation.

I discounted the 11th round pick, because that's a spot where teams typically over-sign regardless of strategy. Grissom is rated a 40 FV, so that probably is worthy of objecting to as far as method.

For the rest of day 3 they drafted four 35 FV prospects, one of whom (Riley King) has already stated he will not sign.

That's what their undersigns on Days 1 and 2 yielded on Day 3.

Given that the draft will almost certainly come down to the first two days, in all probability, that's not a tremendous number of wild cards.

The biggest hopes aren't unknown players. They are guys that were well known and scouted and were obviously pretty signable. Yet 29 other teams elected not to make them a priority.

It's cool if everyone wants to be excited about them and follow them. I'll probably follow them and hope for the stars as well. Folks declaring the strategy has been vindicated...err...let's wait and see. It's not exactly hard to not spend on your top picks and float money down to get more guys.

The draft is usually about the first few rounds. It probably will be this with group as well.
Click to expand...

No one has really ever tried a strategy such as this so we are in unknown territory. A lot of the 11-20 round guys aren’t unknown... they were just HS players who are a bit raw or came from smaller town schools but have big time college scholarships. A lot of these guys may be future top 5 rounders if they go to college. And our C in the first round has a big time ceiling. I’m so sick of the defensive first narrative. He’s a great hitter, his defense is just so good it gets all he press. Any other year he’d be the first C taken off the board but this year just happened to have one of the biggest prospects in recent memory who’s a C so he was second.
 
Southcack77 said:
Think there is a decent chance Priester or Allen would have signed for 4m even at #9.

I think Espino, Malone, and the college guys probably would have signed for that also. I guess we're waiting to see what Rutledge does, but he seems like a guy who probably would be ready to go ahead and get it over with. But he's not signed yet, so perhaps not.

I agree that Langeliers has more upside than he's given credit for. He would not have rated in top 20 picks if he didn't have offensive upside.
Click to expand...

I would rather have Langeliers than any of the guys you mentioned
 
Horsehide Harry said:
I've got no problem with the strategy as an approach. It's the execution that I question. I don't like taking the college players early and underslotting THEM. In theory you've had more years to see a college player and therefore should be more sure as to what they will ultimately be so signing them for underslot is more of a money saving move than a projection gamble where you save some money.

And, the Braves don't have much in the position player need department in the next 3-4 years given how the ML team is constructed and the higher minors position players align.

If they were going to take this strategy, I would have preferred to see them take very young HS players that they could underslot but still possibly find upside that projects from future growth and maturity.
Click to expand...

Man I’m sure to listen to Harry’s takes because they’ve just been oh so brilliant so far. Like we aren’t supposed to even compete until 2021, right Harry? And wasn’t it just like 6 months to a year ago when you were complaining about our lack of position player prospects? I doubt you will ever admit you were wrong about trading FF but at least it’s clear to everyone else even if you won’t admit it publicly. You do know you were wrong though.
 
Last edited:
From how things have unfolded the past few days, my guess is the remaining pool flexibility is loaded up for either Estes or Backstrom. I was under the impression that Morton was going to be the toughest guy to sign, but sign he did. Not one to give advice, but the Josh Anthony example should be heeded by every young player. Granted that the Braves screwed up the negotiations due to a hidden injury from one of the other draftees, but Anthony turned down over $200,000 and honored his commitment to Auburn. He wasn't drafted again. The college degree is worth quite a bit over the length of one's working career, but that $200,000 would have paid for a lot of college. Not a rip on Anthony at all; just a caution to young players. Next time you spin the wheel, it may come up "lose a turn."
 
zbhargrove said:
No one has really ever tried a strategy such as this so we are in unknown territory. A lot of the 11-20 round guys aren’t unknown... they were just HS players who are a bit raw or came from smaller town schools but have big time college scholarships. A lot of these guys may be future top 5 rounders if they go to college. And our C in the first round has a big time ceiling. I’m so sick of the defensive first narrative. He’s a great hitter, his defense is just so good it gets all he press. Any other year he’d be the first C taken off the board but this year just happened to have one of the biggest prospects in recent memory who’s a C so he was second.
Click to expand...

I'm sure someone has done it before. It probably didn't work.

I have no issue with Langeliers.
 
While we wait for the tentpost signings, Estes and Backstrom, to decide, here is an excerpt of an article printed in the Valley Press:

"The Atlanta Braves selected star Paraclete pitcher Joey Estes in the 16th round Wednesday, confident they can convince the right-hander to forgo a scholarship to Long Beach State and begin his professional career immediately.
Once Estes, 17, went undrafted in the first two days of the MLB Draft, he expressed anticipation about enrolling at Long Beach State and playing for one of the elite college baseball programs in America. Atlanta indicated to Chad Eberhardt, Estes’ advisor, that they could meet the price tag necessary to turn pro immediately.
It would depend on if previous draft picks signed at bonus levels the organization budgeted for, so there could be some waiting involved."
 
Last edited:
Southcack77 said:
I'm sure someone has done it before. It probably didn't work.

I have no issue with Langeliers.
Click to expand...

The Rangers matched us in taking the most HS players from rounds 11 to 20 (6). They have been pretty active taking HS players in that part of the draft in recent years and signing some of them to above slot deals. They increased the emphasis on HS players in that part of the draft this year.

They took a pitcher named Tyler Phillips in the 16th round back in 2015 and he's now one of their Top 10 prospects. Back then they were not emphasizing HS players in that part of the draft. But I guess they liked how that worked out and have been gradually increasing their take from the HS ranks. In 2016 they took 2 HS players (and signed them to above-slot deals) in that part of the draft. In 2017 they took and signed 4 HS players (not all to significantly above slot deals). And in 2018 they they took 4 and signed 3.

There may be other teams doing this. I checked on the Rangers because they took so many HS players like we did in those rounds this year.
 
Last edited:
zbhargrove said:
Man I’m sure to listen to Harry’s takes because they’ve just been oh so brilliant so far. Like we aren’t supposed to even compete until 2021, right Harry? And wasn’t it just like 6 months to a year ago when you were complaining about our lack of position player prospects? I doubt you will ever admit you were wrong about trading FF but at least it’s clear to everyone else even if you won’t admit it publicly. You do know you were wrong though.
Click to expand...

zb, it gets really tiresome having you chase me around sniffing my arsehole all the time. If you don't like what I post, move on.

You build these strawman constructions about what I've posted or said then swerve out of your way to pound your chest every chance you get.

I said at the beginning that, while I don't have ANY dislike of Freeman and think he's a great player, his value was likely best to the Braves as trade material given the right return. There's no way to know for sure if that was right or not, since it didn't happen. We will know at some point if having Freeman around made the difference between winning a WS or not, winning in the playoffs or not and being able to sustain a good team for an extended window or not.

My concern about position players (and pitchers as well) has been and is about the low minors which is a data point significant to any extended window instead of a KC-like rise and fall. That remains. There doesn't appear to be much below AA and, given the arrival of the competitive window, the upper minors will likely be degraded through trades as soon as the end of this month. The Braves have no real wave effect of talent. They really have a Tsunami that is hitting with not much behind it. The contract extensions of Acuna and Albies mitigates that concern somewhat.

And, I guess while I'm at this, I advocated exploring a trade with Baltimore last year that would have included taking back Chris Davis. The point then, as now, was that IF the Braves could take on the salary while getting back enough long term value with OTHER players where cutting Davis as necessary, then it might be worthwhile. It was a way of buying talent. You know, like spending millions of dollars on HS, college and international players, you spend money on a dead asset that brings more value than the money given up. Was that idea great? Probably not as it turns out. Not because of Davis's further degeneration but because Baltimore's assets appear to all be bad and you likely couldn't get enough back under ANY circumstances.

Tearing down your strawmen gets old. If you don't agree with a position I take, I welcome civil critical dialog. If you can't understand a position that I take, I will try to educate you to a point. When you continuously take a position that I take, twist it and reintroduce as something it wasn't with a comment that is designed to be confrontational you just come off as small minded, petty, needy and weak.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top