Official pre-Draft thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
One reason I think Beck is in play for us is that I've seen more than one person note that we care less about a proven track record for draftees than other teams. It's why we were willing to go in on Anderson and Wentz with a smaller sample size. We seem to value peak performance and especially recent performance more than a guy who has strung together multiple good years in a row.

So I think Beck's recent rise may cause teams ahead of us to be cautious on him and go after Greene and the college guys (and Lewis, who has been around a while), letting Beck slip to us. And I think we'll be ready to take him regardless of how long he's proven himself. This, of course, assumes we legitimately like Beck's talent more than others like Gore/Bukauskas, etc. But I imagine we might be ready to go in on a big-time HS bat this year.
 
smootness said:
One reason I think Beck is in play for us is that I've seen more than one person note that we care less about a proven track record for draftees than other teams. It's why we were willing to go in on Anderson and Wentz with a smaller sample size. We seem to value peak performance and especially recent performance more than a guy who has strung together multiple good years in a row.

So I think Beck's recent rise may cause teams ahead of us to be cautious on him and go after Greene and the college guys (and Lewis, who has been around a while), letting Beck slip to us. And I think we'll be ready to take him regardless of how long he's proven himself. This, of course, assumes we legitimately like Beck's talent more than others like Gore/Bukauskas, etc. But I imagine we might be ready to go in on a big-time HS bat this year.
Click to expand...

I've seen this written about the Braves too. Whether or not it's a solid strategy is debatable, but I think it's clear the Braves operate in this way.
 
Enscheff said:
I've seen this written about the Braves too. Whether or not it's a solid strategy is debatable, but I think it's clear the Braves operate in this way.
Click to expand...

Except their interest in Anderson was a long-standing one. It wasn't based on his last two or three starts.
 
Enscheff said:
I've seen this written about the Braves too. Whether or not it's a solid strategy is debatable, but I think it's clear the Braves operate in this way.
Click to expand...

I remember Longenhagen writing about it before. This is from his Braves prospect write up. It's definitely interesting:

"The Braves also seem to have a propensity to believe a player’s most recent performance is either (a) what he’ll be moving forward or (b) the start of a continuous upward trend. The organizations seems more willing to jump on prospects in the draft or trade market based on short-term upticks in performance. Ian Anderson, whose stuff was great late in the spring is, the the most prominent example of this and Joey Wentz (who was back up into the mid-90s during state playoffs) is another. Most teams seem to more heavily weigh performance closer to the date of acquisition rather than equally consider an entire long-term sample, but I think the Braves do more so than any other save for perhaps the Dodgers."
 
nsacpi said:
Except their interest in Anderson was a long-standing one. It wasn't based on his last two or three starts.
Click to expand...

Not what I read at all. I'm sure they were obviously keeping tabs on Anderson for quite some time, but his stuff ticked up late in the process and that's what solidified him as the cost saving pick the Braves would take along with other pitchers that had good "peak" showings.
 
I still think it's crazy that teams are not allowed to trade their pick. This would probably be a good year (depending on how it fell), to trade down a bit and put another first rounder in our pocket for next year.

Can anyone give me a clear explanation of why teams are not allowed to do whatever they want with "their" 1st round pick? It just makes zero sense to me, and would make the draft more exciting. What is MLB's reasoning behind this??
 
CJ9 said:
I remember Longenhagen writing about it before. This is from his Braves prospect write up. It's definitely interesting:

"The Braves also seem to have a propensity to believe a player’s most recent performance is either (a) what he’ll be moving forward or (b) the start of a continuous upward trend. The organizations seems more willing to jump on prospects in the draft or trade market based on short-term upticks in performance. Ian Anderson, whose stuff was great late in the spring is, the the most prominent example of this and Joey Wentz (who was back up into the mid-90s during state playoffs) is another. Most teams seem to more heavily weigh performance closer to the date of acquisition rather than equally consider an entire long-term sample, but I think the Braves do more so than any other save for perhaps the Dodgers. This club probably has another top-100 prospect coming in this year’s draft but likely won’t be able to manipulate the shape of the draft as much as they did last year because teams like Cincinnati, Milwaukee, Tampa, and others having multiple picks between Atlanta’s first (No. 5) and second (No. 41) selections."
Click to expand...

Yes, this is what I meant, but couldn't remember where I read it.
 
Enscheff said:
Not what I read at all. I'm sure they were obviously keeping tabs on Anderson for quite some time, but his stuff ticked up late in the process and that's what solidified him as the cost saving pick the Braves would take along with other pitchers that had good "peak" showings.
Click to expand...

They were very interested in Anderson from the end of his junior season. They had someone at pretty much every one of his senior year games.

Quote from BA: Despite battling pneumonia and a minor injury during his senior year, Anderson ranked high on the Braves’ 2016 draft board from the outset.

Even in their early mock drafts, BA linked the Braves to Anderson. Not in some later round, but with the #3 pick in the first round. Obviously, his pitching well late did not hurt his cause. But this is a player we had great interest in for a long time.
 
nsacpi said:
They were very interested in Anderson from the end of his junior season. They had someone at pretty much every one of his senior year games.

Quote from BA: Despite battling pneumonia and a minor injury during his senior year, Anderson ranked high on the Braves’ 2016 draft board from the outset.

Even in their early mock drafts, BA linked the Braves to Anderson. Not in some later round, but with the #3 pick in the first round. Obviously, his pitching well late did not hurt his cause. But this is a player we had great interest in for a long time.
Click to expand...

Definitely the case with Anderson, but that doesn't mean that theory doesn't hold some water when you think about some of the other names the brass has acquired of late...

1.) Hart almost *issed himself when we got Fried - with no recent track-record.

2.) Alex Jackson's slight bounceback last season.

3.) No one else was ever linked to Minter that I remember.

4.) The Wentz mention follows the theory.

5.) We certainly seemed to be the only team buying Riley as a hitter.

I'm sure there are several others to follow the theory - those just popped into mind quickly.
 
TheBravos said:
I still think it's crazy that teams are not allowed to trade their pick. This would probably be a good year (depending on how it fell), to trade down a bit and put another first rounder in our pocket for next year.

Can anyone give me a clear explanation of why teams are not allowed to do whatever they want with "their" 1st round pick? It just makes zero sense to me, and would make the draft more exciting. What is MLB's reasoning behind this??
Click to expand...

Apparently it's so players can't dictate where they'll be drafted by saying "If the Braves draft me, I won't sign and thus go to school unless you trade the pick."

Players still have that leverage to some degree (at least high school players), but MLB doesn't want a lot of trading due to signability concerns.
 
clvclv said:
Definitely the case with Anderson, but that doesn't mean that theory doesn't hold some water when you think about some of the other names the brass has acquired of late...

1.) Hart almost *issed himself when we got Fried - with no recent track-record.

2.) Alex Jackson's slight bounceback last season.

3.) No one else was ever linked to Minter that I remember.

4.) The Wentz mention follows the theory.

5.) We certainly seemed to be the only team buying Riley as a hitter.

I'm sure there are several others to follow the theory - those just popped into mind quickly.
Click to expand...

Gohara.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top