- STARTS TODAY AT 7PM - 2016 June Amateur Draft Discussion

Status
Not open for further replies.
still not sure about going for the underslot at this point. The Reds are most assuredly going under/over slot play. They are going to be in position to snag anyone worth snagging. I also don't know about passing up a talent like Groome.

But lets think about Groome now. So if he falls to #3 and we pass on him, then the next suitor is the Rockies (where pitchers go to die) at #4 with a slot bonus of 5.2 million.. Now I wonder if the Braves could convince Groome to take 4.5 million at #3 and they could still have room to over slot at #40... Basically if the Braves pass on Groome, then he will probably not be drafted because he will be asking for too much... thoughts?

The Braves could take Groome at #3 and say, here is 5.5 million (more than the Rockies could give them unless they went over slot on #4), then over slot #40 with Senzel with 3.7 million (basically #8 pick money) and then some college reliever at #44 just to keep money in line.
 
smootness said:
I think we're getting a little too caught up in the idea of going under slot at 3. I'm fine with it if we can still get the kind of talent we want, but if the most talented player in the draft is sitting there at 3, I think you have to take him and then again go with the best talent you can get at 40 and 44 when the time comes.

We got Soroka at 28 last year, and that is working out just fine. I just don't want us to pass up an elite talent at 3 just because we can get a little better talent at 40.
Click to expand...

If the choice comes down to Groome plus a couple of nobodies at 40/44 vs Senzel and two top 25ish talents at 40/44, I think they should pass on Groome.

This is all conjecture though, so who knows what's really possible and who knows which guys would really be willing to play the Daz game with the Braves.
 
bravesfanMatt said:
still not sure about going for the underslot at this point. The Reds are most assuredly going under/over slot play. They are going to be in position to snag anyone worth snagging. I also don't know about passing up a talent like Groome.

But lets think about Groome now. So if he falls to #3 and we pass on him, then the next suitor is the Rockies (where pitchers go to die) at #4 with a slot bonus of 5.2 million.. Now I wonder if the Braves could convince Groome to take 4.5 million at #3 and they could still have room to over slot at #40... Basically if the Braves pass on Groome, then he will probably not be drafted because he will be asking for too much... thoughts?

The Braves could take Groome at #3 and say, here is 5.5 million (more than the Rockies could give them unless they went over slot on #4), then over slot #40 with Senzel with 3.7 million (basically #8 pick money) and then some college reliever at #44 just to keep money in line.
Click to expand...

I feel like what happened with Daz Cameron last year has ruined everyone's thinking on the draft. The reality is that it isn't extremely likely you're going to get a guy who is clearly a top-10 pick to just tell those teams not to draft him because the Braves have told him they'll pay him slightly more at 40. The reason Daz Cameron fell is because he basically refused to take anything below top-5 money....but his talent eventually failed to justify that pick. It's not that he just told teams he wouldn't take less because he wanted to go to Houston. He demanded more than his talent was worth. I frankly don't want to pay anyone more than they're worth.

I just don't really want to get into this game of taking a lesser talent for less money at 3 on the hopes we can get a better talent at 40. It's not likely to work out that way. If Groome is there at 3, you almost have to take him because he is the best talent in the draft according to just about everyone. You're still going to get good talent at 40 and 44 even if you can't go over slot. If something falls in your lap (like Lewis is still there and you can get him for under slot), then take it. But don't change your draft strategy and take a lesser talent than you would otherwise take just because it's cheaper.
 
Enscheff said:
If the choice comes down to Groome plus a couple of nobodies at 40/44 vs Senzel and two top 25ish talents at 40/44, I think they should pass on Groome.

This is all conjecture though, so who knows what's really possible and who knows which guys would really be willing to play the Daz game with the Braves.
Click to expand...

But 'a couple of nobodies'? That's extreme hyperbole. There will certainly be players available at 40 and 44 that Braves scouts really like, no matter what. And you probably won't be able to guarantee exactly what will happen beforehand. You would still be taking a risk that the players you're targeting are actually still there at 40 and 44. Especially with the Reds picking ahead of us.
 
smootness said:
I feel like what happened with Daz Cameron last year has ruined everyone's thinking on the draft. The reality is that it isn't extremely likely you're going to get a guy who is clearly a top-10 pick to just tell those teams not to draft him because the Braves have told him they'll pay him slightly more at 40. The reason Daz Cameron fell is because he basically refused to take anything below top-5 money....but his talent eventually failed to justify that pick. It's not that he just told teams he wouldn't take less because he wanted to go to Houston. He demanded more than his talent was worth. I frankly don't want to pay anyone more than they're worth.

I just don't really want to get into this game of taking a lesser talent for less money at 3 on the hopes we can get a better talent at 40. It's not likely to work out that way. If Groome is there at 3, you almost have to take him because he is the best talent in the draft according to just about everyone. You're still going to get good talent at 40 and 44 even if you can't go over slot. If something falls in your lap (like Lewis is still there and you can get him for under slot), then take it. But don't change your draft strategy and take a lesser talent than you would otherwise take just because it's cheaper.
Click to expand...

I think that is what I am saying. I don't want to pass on Groome if he is there. Just thinking of ways to maximize #40.. If Groome falls to #3, then he can get 6.5 million from us, or he can pass on us and get 5.2 million from the rockies... or go to college. So I would at least feel him out at 5.5 or 5.6 million.. he will most likely give indication to teams what his floor is going to be..but at 5.5, that leaves an extra million to combine with the 3 million total at #40 and #44..
 
Take a closer look at Senzel's stats this year in ~200 PAs playing in the SEC. Keep in mind this is his Junior year and he is 21:

.339/.444/.582 (1.026 OPS), 7 HRs, 31 BBs, 15 Ks

That K/BB ratio is outstanding, and it's not like he isn't hitting for any power like some have suggested. Over 600 PAs that would translate to 20 HRs. In fact, it is a very similar line to Swanson's Junior season at Vandy, but with far fewer Ks.

If he can play an average 3B (and I've read he should be decent there) I'm starting to think a player like that who is 2 years away might not be such a bad pick at 3, especially if he signs for under slot.
 
smootness said:
But 'a couple of nobodies'? That's extreme hyperbole. There will certainly be players available at 40 and 44 that Braves scouts really like, no matter what. And you probably won't be able to guarantee exactly what will happen beforehand. You would still be taking a risk that the players you're targeting are actually still there at 40 and 44. Especially with the Reds picking ahead of us.
Click to expand...

If Groome requires over slot money at 3, then yes, they would be forced to take under slot "nobodies" at 40/44 to make up the difference, especially compared to some top 25 talents that could be signed over slot at 40/44.

Again, it's all conjecture. If the choice was Groome over slot plus 2 guys willing to sign under slot at 40/44 vs Senzel under slot plus 2 guys over slot at 40/44 I think it's pretty clear which is the best route.
 
Enscheff said:
If Groome requires over slot money at 3, then yes, they would be forced to take under slot "nobodies" at 40/44 to make up the difference, especially compared to some top 25 talents that could be signed over slot at 40/44.

Again, it's all conjecture. If the choice was Groome over slot plus 2 guys willing to sign under slot at 40/44 vs Senzel under slot plus 2 guys over slot at 40/44 I think it's pretty clear which is the best route.
Click to expand...

That would be pretty crazy to have to go over-slot at 3, though. Nobody in the draft last year signed for a bonus of more than $6.5 million. Groome would be demanding more than that in order to be over-slot. I seriously doubt that would happen.
 
Enscheff said:
Take a closer look at Senzel's stats this year in ~200 PAs playing in the SEC. Keep in mind this is his Junior year and he is 21:

.339/.444/.582 (1.026 OPS), 7 HRs, 31 BBs, 15 Ks

That K/BB ratio is outstanding, and it's not like he isn't hitting for any power like some have suggested. Over 600 PAs that would translate to 20 HRs. In fact, it is a very similar line to Swanson's Junior season at Vandy, but with far fewer Ks.

If he can play an average 3B (and I've read he should be decent there) I'm starting to think a player like that who is 2 years away might not be such a bad pick at 3, especially if he signs for under slot.
Click to expand...

Senzel isn't a punch and judy hitter. He's got raw strength. Most likely scenario is that he hits 15 or so HRs a year in the majors. Not a huge power threat but not nothing. If he were to be able to push it up to 20-25 while maintaining a .300 BA, he'd be a huge get.
 
chop2chip said:
I think you could make the argument that we still need more quality starting pitching in the organization if you factor in the big league rotation.

MLB:

Teheran

Wisler

Blair

Folty?

AAA:

Jenkins?

Sims?

AA:

Newcomb

Ellis?

A+:

Povse?

A:

Allard

Sorotka

Sanchez?

I'm probably forgetting a few there, but my point is that we have plenty of awesome pitching prospects coming into the season, but outside of Teheran and Wisler the cupboard was absolutely bare in the big leagues. I think each organization that is expecting to compete should have 7-8 quality starting pitchers options at any given time. I don't think we have enough pitchers in the system yet for that. That's why I would be really glad to see us pursue a TOR arm in this offseason or the next. I also don't think we are at the point yet where we should just assume we can trade our starting pitcher depth for position players.

If Ray and Puk are off the board by pick 3, then I would prefer Pint or Groome at 3. This just isn't the draft for us to infuse our farm with position players.
Click to expand...

It's very doubtful our rotation will be only braves farmhands. We'll likely sign/trade for a quality pitcher.
 
I guess the pick at 3 really boils down to grab the best talent (possibly elite?) or go safe like a Senzel and two other top talents later (but not "elite")? If you are a WAR guy, which way to you go?
 
Tapate50 said:
I guess the pick at 3 really boils down to grab the best talent (possibly elite?) or go safe like a Senzel and two other top talents later (but not "elite")? If you are a WAR guy, which way to you go?
Click to expand...

Based on the kind of risk involved in draft picks, give me the best overall talent in the draft, the single guy with the best chance to develop into a stud. There's not really a huge difference in risk between the #25 guy and the #40 guy.
 
Carp said:
It's very doubtful our rotation will be only braves farmhands. We'll likely sign/trade for a quality pitcher.
Click to expand...

Then question becomes who do you trade for pitching? Our trade assets are basically just pitching. It's difficult to add quantity and quality through trades. The Shelby Miller is a lone exception.

I have advocated signing at least one front line starter in free agency. I understand that it's probably the riskiest move you can make, but if we want to competitive in the next couple years, then it's basically a must.
 
I would be shocked if we spend much money on pitching, whether through FA or a trade. We have stockpiled so much pitching talent specifically so that we can hopefully avoid having to do that.
 
Listening to the Baseball America podcast, they're talking about some of the things we are about teams going underslot early and floating guys later in the draft. Like we've said here, they mentioned the Reds being in the best spot to do that, but they had an interesting point. They said the Padres (picking 8, 24, 25) and Cardinals (picking 23. 33, 34) can both keep the Reds/Braves from floating a guy like Daz Cameron last year. They'll have the big signing pools to steal anybody falling like that. Interesting point that I hadn't thought about.
 
CJ9 said:
Listening to the Baseball America podcast, they're talking about some of the things we are about teams going underslot early and floating guys later in the draft. Like we've said here, they mentioned the Reds being in the best spot to do that, but they had an interesting point. They said the Padres (picking 8, 24, 25) and Cardinals (picking 23. 33, 34) can both keep the Reds/Braves from floating a guy like Daz Cameron last year. They'll have the big signing pools to steal anybody falling like that. Interesting point that I hadn't thought about.
Click to expand...

It will probably be very hard to game the system to make a top 25 guy drop all the way to 40. The Astros only had to get Daz to drop into the 20s. We are probably putting a lot of effort into discussing a scenario that in unrealistic, but it's the only thing to do when the team is on pace to lose 120 games haha!
 
smootness said:
Based on the kind of risk involved in draft picks, give me the best overall talent in the draft, the single guy with the best chance to develop into a stud. There's not really a huge difference in risk between the #25 guy and the #40 guy.
Click to expand...

I tend to agree with this. Get the guy who can turn into a true stud because those are the hardest assets to acquire. Average MLB players are available every offseason, but the true studs are rarely available until they are on the down slope of their career.

Drafting a single Chipper or Trout or McCutchen is probably worth more than drafting 5 Mike Minors.
 
Enscheff said:
It will probably be very hard to game the system to make a top 25 guy drop all the way to 40. The Astros only had to get Daz to drop into the 20s. We are probably putting a lot of effort into discussing a scenario that in unrealistic, but it's the only thing to do when the team is on pace to lose 120 games haha!
Click to expand...

This is kind of what I've been getting at. I don't think it's worth it to try to devise a scheme to get a top talent to fall to you at 40 because it's unlikely that guy will fall all the way there, and there are multiple teams probably trying to figure out the same kind of scheme. Just take the best player where you're drafting each time, and you'll be fine.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top