Official pre-Draft thread
- Thread starter Hudson2
- Start date
- Status
bravesfanMatt
Steve Harvey'd
In before it doesn't matter because something something Swanson something something winning
cajunrevenge
Well-known member
JJ Schwarz makes a lot of sense. Catcher is a real weakness throughout the organization.
NinersSBChamps
<B>Voted Worst Poster <br> 2015 (Co-Winner)</BR>20
We definitely need a high school pitcher who will never sniff the majors. Haven't had one of those drafted for almost a year now I think.
? We're 33 games into the season now. Kendall is slashing .309/.394/.604 with 10 HR. The problem is, he's striking out a ton and doesn't have a ton of steals. I'm not sure I want him at 5.
His stock has crashed. He's hitting terribly this year and has taken a significant step back every year he's been in school. And there were already questions about him sticking at catcher. Almost certainly not a 1st round pick at this point.
Oklahomabrave
Anytime Now Frankie...
His stock has fallen really far. He might not even be a 2nd round pick at this point.
Kendall actually might be there at 5. Greene, McKay, Beck, Bukaukas, Faedo, could all go before him. Not sure if we'd take a college hitter even if available.
bravesfanMatt
Steve Harvey'd
This was funny.
NinersSBChamps
<B>Voted Worst Poster <br> 2015 (Co-Winner)</BR>20
If this guy is anyway related to Jason Kendall then I want him.
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
I think it is instructive to compare the 2015 and 2016 drafts. The first rule of course is to pick good players and that applies to all drafts. But there are elements of strategy and emphasis that differ from draft to draft. Even before the "returns" are fully in, it appears likely that the 2015 draft will turn out to be the better one. Here are some takeaways:
1) The first pick. We had the #3 in 2016 and the #14 in 2015. We went for highest upside in 2015. I understand the strategy behind what we did in 2016. But the outcomes so far reinforce my view that you really want to go with upside as your primary consideration with your first pick.
2) We had a second first round pick in 2015 but none in 2016. This was due to Santana hitting free agency. We did very well with that pick by selecting Soroka. This reinforces another one of my beliefs, which is that we should not be afraid to hold on to a player in his free agency season. Needless to say players have more motivation in these circumstances. But more importantly, the draft pick associated with losing a quality player is very valuable.
3) We had 2 second and 2 third round picks in both 2015 and 2016. Over the years, we have done best with high school position players in this part of the draft and worst with high school pitchers. In 2015, we drafted 2 high school position players, 1 college pitcher and 1 high school pitcher with those picks. In 2016, we drafted 2 high school pitchers, 1 college pitcher and 1 college position player. Without going into detail regarding the identity of individual players, I like the mix we took in 2015 with these picks much better.
4) Rounds 4-10 are the middle rounds. Players taken here are less likely to be stars, but a good draft will still yield a couple major league players from these rounds. Historically, we have done much better with college pitchers in this part of the draft. In 2015, we took 7 straight college pitchers in rounds 4 to 10. In 2016, we took a mix with more emphasis on college hitters. We did very well in 2015, with both Weigel and Withrow taken in this part of the draft. We need to go back to the 2015 template.
5) Beyond the 10th round it is a crap shoot. I have felt, however, that we have been a bit "lazy" over the years in not working hard to identify some high school players worth taking in the late rounds. In 2015, we did take some interesting high schoolers in this part of the draft in 2015 (Keller, Suarez, Hellinger). In 2016, we were very college heavy again.
As outlined above, there is a bit of a "template" that increases your chances of success in various portions of the draft. I thought we executed it extremely well in 2015. In 2016, not so much.
So my wish for 2017 is we go back to the 2015 game plan. Highest upside with the first pick. High school position players in rounds 2 & 3. College pitchers in the middle rounds. And a sprinkling of high school players in the late rounds.
1) The first pick. We had the #3 in 2016 and the #14 in 2015. We went for highest upside in 2015. I understand the strategy behind what we did in 2016. But the outcomes so far reinforce my view that you really want to go with upside as your primary consideration with your first pick.
2) We had a second first round pick in 2015 but none in 2016. This was due to Santana hitting free agency. We did very well with that pick by selecting Soroka. This reinforces another one of my beliefs, which is that we should not be afraid to hold on to a player in his free agency season. Needless to say players have more motivation in these circumstances. But more importantly, the draft pick associated with losing a quality player is very valuable.
3) We had 2 second and 2 third round picks in both 2015 and 2016. Over the years, we have done best with high school position players in this part of the draft and worst with high school pitchers. In 2015, we drafted 2 high school position players, 1 college pitcher and 1 high school pitcher with those picks. In 2016, we drafted 2 high school pitchers, 1 college pitcher and 1 college position player. Without going into detail regarding the identity of individual players, I like the mix we took in 2015 with these picks much better.
4) Rounds 4-10 are the middle rounds. Players taken here are less likely to be stars, but a good draft will still yield a couple major league players from these rounds. Historically, we have done much better with college pitchers in this part of the draft. In 2015, we took 7 straight college pitchers in rounds 4 to 10. In 2016, we took a mix with more emphasis on college hitters. We did very well in 2015, with both Weigel and Withrow taken in this part of the draft. We need to go back to the 2015 template.
5) Beyond the 10th round it is a crap shoot. I have felt, however, that we have been a bit "lazy" over the years in not working hard to identify some high school players worth taking in the late rounds. In 2015, we did take some interesting high schoolers in this part of the draft in 2015 (Keller, Suarez, Hellinger). In 2016, we were very college heavy again.
As outlined above, there is a bit of a "template" that increases your chances of success in various portions of the draft. I thought we executed it extremely well in 2015. In 2016, not so much.
So my wish for 2017 is we go back to the 2015 game plan. Highest upside with the first pick. High school position players in rounds 2 & 3. College pitchers in the middle rounds. And a sprinkling of high school players in the late rounds.
Yeah, I'm still stunned when people bring him up. As a UF and Braves fan, I want nothing to do with him. He wasn't even in Baseball America's top 100 recently. He has zero chance to stick behind the plate. He throws changeups to second and isn't athletic behind the plate at all. His swing is a mess, the power has almost completely evaporated. I don't want him with any of our picks in the top five rounds.
Good recap, and I agree with what you wrote. Regardless of what the front office wants to do, I think their hand might be forced to go high upside and BPA at 5 this year since they won't be able to float someone down to their second round pick. Or at least it will be a lot harder to do.
Unless we trade for some Competetive Balance Round picks, I think we go a little more straight up with our pick in terms of BPA. We don't really have the pool to get as creative as some other teams and as such I'd expect at least a near-slot deal at 5. My preferences at this point would be:
1) Greene (never going to happen)
2) Lewis
3) Beck
4) Kendall
5) McKay
1) Greene (never going to happen)
2) Lewis
3) Beck
4) Kendall
5) McKay
Hudson2
Well-known member
The website I checked I guess wasn't updated. I'm not worried about steals. Hitting over .300 with double digits is pretty intriguing though. I agree about the strikeouts. I still see him as a possible top 5 pick though I like Lewis and Beck better.
I think its hard to have a 'template' for a draft.
Like its great to say my template is HS positional players in rounds 2-3; but what happens when the draft rolls around and you don't like the HS bats that are available in those spots? A lot of people on the board don't love taking HS pitchers with first round picks and want guys with upside --- yet Soroka is one of the best picks we've made recently.
I think the best template is just BPA almost all the way through, especially when you don't have the extra money to manipulate the board. So at that point you're really just trusting the scouts to find that BPA. I really have zero preference if its a college hitter, a HS arm or anything in between, I just want the best players. Baseball is Monopoly - its all about collecting the best and most assets.
Like its great to say my template is HS positional players in rounds 2-3; but what happens when the draft rolls around and you don't like the HS bats that are available in those spots? A lot of people on the board don't love taking HS pitchers with first round picks and want guys with upside --- yet Soroka is one of the best picks we've made recently.
I think the best template is just BPA almost all the way through, especially when you don't have the extra money to manipulate the board. So at that point you're really just trusting the scouts to find that BPA. I really have zero preference if its a college hitter, a HS arm or anything in between, I just want the best players. Baseball is Monopoly - its all about collecting the best and most assets.
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
I don't mean for the template to be so inflexible as to preclude taking certain types of players in certain parts of the draft. But I do think if historically you tend to have the most success with high school hitters in rounds 2 and 3 and the least success with high school pitchers in those rounds you should take that information into account. I was really struck at the time of the 2015 draft how much it conformed to that kind of analysis. Given the 2016 draft, it is obvious that the Braves are not rigidly adhering to a template of that kind. The point of my post was that the success of the 2015 draft reinforces the case I laid out (which is based on data from prior drafts).
Tapate50
Well-known member
I just searched BA for this guy, as he is a local prospect that was getting some first round love last year. Not a word about him in the top 100 column and nothing since he was offered by Auburn. Does that mean his stock has fallen that far, or he's expected to enroll regardless of draft spot?
I can't imagine a big athletic catcher with a nice arm that can hit isn't in the top 100 of a WEAK catcher class falling that far...
Although it'll drive some folks crazy, I'm not sure Bukauskas might not be a really good fit. He's going to move FAST, and could conceivably be ready to help the rotation as early as late 2018. Being able to add someone that quickly suddenly frees you up to trade an arm (or two or three) for a serious bat. If you believe in Fried and Allard and Gohara (which I do), taking J. B. if he's there at #5 suddenly makes swapping an arm or two for Moustakas and extending him to solve 3B sure makes A LOT of sense.
If the Royals don't start playing much better really soon, DMGM would be crazy not to take Newcomb for Moose straight up IMO. That still leaves us the 3 lefties mentioned above, Bukauskas, and Soroka - all of whom should be ready to step in by 2019 at the latest, plus Weigel, Sims, Touki and last year's draftees.
If the Royals don't start playing much better really soon, DMGM would be crazy not to take Newcomb for Moose straight up IMO. That still leaves us the 3 lefties mentioned above, Bukauskas, and Soroka - all of whom should be ready to step in by 2019 at the latest, plus Weigel, Sims, Touki and last year's draftees.
- Status