Three 35s and a bunch of unrated. If that’s what floats your boat...
Three 35s and a bunch of unrated. If that’s what floats your boat...
lol what
The draft is usually about the first few rounds. It probably will be this with group as well.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I'm sure someone has done it before. It probably didn't work.
I'm sure someone has done it before. It probably didn't work.
I have no issue with Langeliers.
I'm sure someone has done it before. It probably didn't work.
I have no issue with Langeliers.
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.