2019 MLB Draft Thread

Reading more on McCann, it sounds like the big questions are contact and defense. Here's the MLB Pipeline scouting report on him:

"McCann committed to Georgia Tech as a high school junior even though the Yellow Jackets had two premium catching prospects, Tyler Stephenson and Joey Bart, in the recruiting class ahead of him. Stephenson signed with the Reds as a first-round pick but Bart made it to campus, which meant McCann spent his first two college seasons playing first base while Bart blossomed into the No. 2 overall pick in the 2018 Draft. McCann has returned behind the plate this spring while maintaining his status as one of the Atlantic Coast Conference's top sluggers.

McCann's best tool is his plus raw left-handed power, and he uses the strength and leverage in his 6-foot-2 frame to drive the ball to all fields. There's some swing and miss in his game and he has yet to have much success with wood bats, so he probably won't hit for a high average. But he compensates by working deep counts and drawing plenty of walks to fuel healthy on-base percentages.

There are mixed reviews of McCann's defensive prowess, though a team that believes in his ability to catch and loves his lefty pop could take him as high as the second round. While he's improving as he gets more time behind the plate, he may never be more than a fringy receiver. He has solid to plus arm strength, though his long arm stroke means it plays closer to average."
 
CJ9 said:
Reading more on McCann, it sounds like the big questions are contact and defense. Here's the MLB Pipeline scouting report on him:

"McCann committed to Georgia Tech as a high school junior even though the Yellow Jackets had two premium catching prospects, Tyler Stephenson and Joey Bart, in the recruiting class ahead of him. Stephenson signed with the Reds as a first-round pick but Bart made it to campus, which meant McCann spent his first two college seasons playing first base while Bart blossomed into the No. 2 overall pick in the 2018 Draft. McCann has returned behind the plate this spring while maintaining his status as one of the Atlantic Coast Conference's top sluggers.

McCann's best tool is his plus raw left-handed power, and he uses the strength and leverage in his 6-foot-2 frame to drive the ball to all fields. There's some swing and miss in his game and he has yet to have much success with wood bats, so he probably won't hit for a high average. But he compensates by working deep counts and drawing plenty of walks to fuel healthy on-base percentages.

There are mixed reviews of McCann's defensive prowess, though a team that believes in his ability to catch and loves his lefty pop could take him as high as the second round. While he's improving as he gets more time behind the plate, he may never be more than a fringy receiver. He has solid to plus arm strength, though his long arm stroke means it plays closer to average."
Click to expand...

While I understand the reason some folks aren't thrilled with the prospect of picking Langeliers, I really have a tough time picturing AA going after a college Catcher with BOTH defensive and contact concerns - particularly that early. The only reason I would be in favor of grabbing Langeliers is because the dropoff at the position after him is so pronounced. If they're considering a Catcher at all early in the draft, they probably have to take Langeliers IMO.

Of course there's no reason they need to grab one early at all since they could potentially grab a Matt Dyer/Hayden Dunhurst at #98 or one of several other college Catchers at #128.
 
The Athletic put out a mock draft today with their MLB beat writers. I wouldn't waste your time with it. DOB picked Manoah at 9 and suggested the Braves stick him in the bullpen, so that was fun.
 
If the return from the first three picks is college pitcher, prep pitcher, college catcher, I will be unpleasantly surprised.
 
Jaw said:
If the return from the first three picks is college pitcher, prep pitcher, college catcher, I will be unpleasantly surprised.
Click to expand...

I'd look more at whether we got upside with the two first round picks.

At the very top of each draft you can look at upside and floor (because both are high) and there are six players like that in this year's draft. Unfortunately for us our first pick is #9, so barring some sort of deal that causes one of the top six to slide we are not going to get that kind of high ceiling/high floor of player. This leaves us to follow the maxim you need to follow in the first round: draft for ceiling. And that could be a college or HS player and it could be either a pitcher or hitter. I'll throw out Rutledge as someone I think we should consider seriously as a high ceiling type.
 
clvclv said:
While I understand the reason some folks aren't thrilled with the prospect of picking Langeliers, I really have a tough time picturing AA going after a college Catcher with BOTH defensive and contact concerns - particularly that early. The only reason I would be in favor of grabbing Langeliers is because the dropoff at the position after him is so pronounced. If they're considering a Catcher at all early in the draft, they probably have to take Langeliers IMO.

Of course there's no reason they need to grab one early at all since they could potentially grab a Matt Dyer/Hayden Dunhurst at #98 or one of several other college Catchers at #128.
Click to expand...

Langeliers is fine at 21. He just isn't worthy of top 10 pick, imo. We need to shoot for someone with more upside. McCann also, is fine at 60.
 
Carp said:
Langeliers is fine at 21. He just isn't worthy of top 10 pick, imo. We need to shoot for someone with more upside. McCann also, is fine at 60.
Click to expand...

exactly, you can find a boatload of players with similar profiles in the second round...and I hope we will take a player like that with our second round pick

but with those two first round picks we should be drafting the player with the highest ceiling
 
nsacpi said:
I'd look more at whether we got upside with the two first round picks.

At the very top of each draft you can look at upside and floor (because both are high) and there are six players like that in this year's draft. Unfortunately for us our first pick is #9, so barring some sort of deal that causes one of the top six to slide we are not going to get that kind of high ceiling/high floor of player. This leaves us to follow the maxim you need to follow in the first round: draft for ceiling. And that could be a college or HS player and it could be either a pitcher or hitter. I'll throw out Rutledge as someone I think we should consider seriously as a high ceiling type.
Click to expand...

Sure. But this is being called a historically bad draft for pitchers. For the Braves to still grab two pitchers with their first two picks would be very Bravesy of them, and I don't mean that in the good way.
 
Jaw said:
Sure. But this is being called a historically bad draft for pitchers. For the Braves to still grab two pitchers with their first two picks would be very Bravesy of them, and I don't mean that in the good way.
Click to expand...

there isnt a pitcher that you would take in the top 5...but that's true of many drafts...its just that teams did not learn this until recently

for the #9 and 21 picks, there are a number of pitchers who should be considered

last time we had 2 first round picks we took Allard and Soroka...I could live with a repeat of that outcome...actually I'd be very happy with it
 
Last edited:
Jaw said:
Sure. But this is being called a historically bad draft for pitchers. For the Braves to still grab two pitchers with their first two picks would be very Bravesy of them, and I don't mean that in the good way.
Click to expand...

The ingrained logic by some board members is along the lines of: “if it’s a bad draft for pitching you better grab a lot of them to increase your chances of getting a good one”.

It tracks very close to the logic I’ve heard several times around here: “if pitching is very risky you better draft a lot of it to make sure some pan out”.
 
Last edited:
Enscheff said:
The ingrained logic by some board members is along the lines of: “if it’s a bad draft for pitching you better grab a lot of them to increase your chances of getting a good one”.

It tracks very close to the logic I’ve heard several times around here: “if pitching is very risky you better draft a lot of it to make sure some pan out”.
Click to expand...

Also, if it's a good draft for pitching you better grab a lot of pitchers, because that's the strength of the draft.
 
There are a few basic rules to follow in setting up a draft board

1) Properly discount the injury/bust rate for pitching prospects. Effectively, this means there should rarely be a pitcher in the top 5 of any team's draft board. It also means that pitchers should only be about a third of the players on any team's draft board for the rest of the first round (outside the top 5) and also in the 2nd and 3rd rounds.

2) If you have a pick in the first 5 you should look at floor as well as ceiling. This is because pretty much all prospects ranked that high will have a very high ceiling. What might separate them is the degree of riskiness.

3) If you don't have a pick in the first 5, you should focus on getting the highest ceiling guy you can find in the first round.

4) The second round is a good place to look at players who might not have a loud tool but have multiple potential paths to success in the majors. I'll mention that this year's draft seems rich in college and high school shortstops. I think picking one would be a good bet in the second round.
 
MadduxFanII said:
Also, if it's a good draft for pitching you better grab a lot of pitchers, because that's the strength of the draft.
Click to expand...

Obviously you have to draft some pitchers. The key is to understand the bust rate and how that affects relative returns of pitchers relative to position players. If you have a pick very high in the first round, picking a pitcher doesn't make sense. There might be an exception once in a while. A "generational" talent like Strasburg. He's the one recent pitching prospect I can think of off the top of my head who I think a team would be justified in taking very early in the draft.

Picking a pitcher later in the first round is not necessarily a bad move. It depends on how the teams ahead of you have drafted. Looking at the way some of the mock drafts have gone, I'd have interest in Rutledge and Manoah with the #9 pick.
 
Last edited:
i still don’t understand the logic of “every team needs a lot of pitchers. pitchers are risky. therefore you don’t want to acquire a lot of pitchers.”
 
Super said:
i still don’t understand the logic of “every team needs a lot of pitchers. pitchers are risky. therefore you don’t want to acquire a lot of pitchers.”
Click to expand...

Use cheap options (draft picks) on safer assets. Use expensive options (free agents and trades) on established, less risky options.
 
sturg33 said:
Use cheap options (draft picks) on safer assets. Use expensive options (free agents and trades) on established, less risky options.
Click to expand...

I might think just the opposite.

The most beneficial thing in the sport is to draft an elite player who you control and have leverage over for perhaps their whole prime.
 
Just divide the draft into tiers and figure risk into sorting them out.

Take what falls to you.

Don’t act like you have the secret to the universe because you’ve read a couple of articles about some dude or another. Chances are your dude is going to fail and you’ll never mention him again.
 
sturg33 said:
So people like Acuna, Riley, Albies, Swanson?
Click to expand...

Most of those guys are not elite.

The safest guy at draft time now has the least upside.

The highest risk players ended up perhaps being the best.

I’m not sure exactly what your position is which is why I said I might disagree.

I think spending money on proven guys in FA and trade is pretty inefficient.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top