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

[chop2chip]

Oh, we're definitely not. I just don't get some supposed scout's take on him. That fangraphs article essentially calls him a lock to go top 5. That is a hit on their credibility. After their Braves' prospect list, I'm losing confidence in them fast.

Are you saying that because you disagree with the write ups or because you don't trust those who differ too much from the collective prospect group think? (I.e. Law, Baseball America, etc have player A as X and you have him as Y. You are the outlier hence you are wrong)

Even though, I disagreed with his Braves rankings. I thought his write ups were very interesting. Farnsworth also is known to be a hitting mechanics wiz too. I wouldn't disregard everything he has to say.

 

[MadduxFanII]

He's not a fit for us, because we've got Freeman signed for eternity, but of all the draft eligible guys on Florida's roster, I wouldn't be surprised to see Peter Alonso put together the best career. Guy can just rake, and big-time power from the right side is a rare resource these days. Some team is going to be very happy with him on draft day.

 

[smootness]

Are you saying that because you disagree with the write ups or because you don't trust those who differ too much from the collective prospect group think? (I.e. Law, Baseball America, etc have player A as X and you have him as Y. You are the outlier hence you are wrong)

Even though, I disagreed with his Braves rankings. I thought his write ups were very interesting. Farnsworth also is known to be a hitting mechanics wiz too. I wouldn't disregard everything he has to say.

Uh, I disagreed with them because they were ridiculous. And the ridiculous rankings were pitchers, not hitters. He had Ryan Weber as our #4 prospect. That's just dumb and not because it's different from the consensus.

 

[chop2chip]

Uh, I disagreed with them because they were ridiculous. And the ridiculous rankings were pitchers, not hitters. He had Ryan Weber as our #4 prospect. That's just dumb and not because it's different from the consensus.

I think you're getting too caught up in the ordinal numbering of prospects. His actual write ups on Gant and Weber (two prospects he differed the very most on) were very informative. In fact, if you read his write up on Gant now after his really great spring, you can see some of the wisdom on what he had to say. So while I disagree he was our #2 and obviously with his 60 FV, I think his write up on Gant was awesome and not completely out of line.

"I think too much emphasis is put on reasons to doubt him rather than focusing on his strengths. Watching him pitch, he often finishes his delivery with his back leg stuck behind his body, giving the whole thing a stunted look. It happens even more obviously when he tries to reach back for extra velo. However, all the important parts of his delivery are very good. He keeps himself in line with the plate very consistently, gets good drive out of his legs, and has some of the cleanest arm action you could ask for.

Gant throws a low- to mid-90s fastball with great command, an average-ish curve elevated by his ability to throw it for strikes to both sides of the plate, and a wicked changeup with split-type action. You can point to his delivery or his build as limiting factors, but he does more than enough things very well to make it work for him. I think the Braves made a great move grabbing this guy before he faces high-minors competition and invalidates his doubters.

I put Gant at the top of the pitchers in the system because he has the clearest path to getting hitters out after multiple looks. He won’t wow you with his stuff, though across the board it looks better than average. His ability to locate the ball and knowing when and how to use his offspeed pitches are huge separating factors from most pitching prospects. Others on this list have that potential, but none have it already, combined with a legitimate starter’s repertoire."

 

[rico43]

Jim Callis has passed along the slot values and spending pool that teams will have at their disposal in the June amateur draft.

The Braves, picking third, have the fourth-highest bonus pool at $12,385,200. The third overall picks slot value will eat up a chunk of that at $6,510,000, should whoever they draft/sign demands slot value or worse.
Pick #40 slots at $1,616,000. Pick #44, $1,459,000. Pick #80, $788,000.

 

[Enscheff]

Jim Callis has passed along the slot values and spending pool that teams will have at their disposal in the June amateur draft.

The Braves, picking third, have the fourth-highest bonus pool at $12,385,200. The third overall picks slot value will eat up a chunk of that at $6,510,000, should whoever they draft/sign demands slot value or worse.

Pick #40 slots at $1,616,000. Pick #44, $1,459,000. Pick #80, $788,000.

It's interesting to think about draft strategy. The Braves could spend slot on picks #3 and #40, or they could spend $4M on each pick and essentially get 2 top 10 talents if they reach a bit and draft a guy at #3 that will sign for #10 money.

I know players don't just slot in nicely in an exact order, but what would you rather have: the #3 and #40 talent, or the #10 and #11 talent?

 

[CJ9]

The criticism of this draft is it's lack of star power at the top but it supposedly has depth. I'd rather go 3/40 in a typical draft with some stars at the top, but I think 10/11 might be the best approach this year.

 

[smootness]

It's interesting to think about draft strategy. The Braves could spend slot on picks #3 and #40, or they could spend $4M on each pick and essentially get 2 top 10 talents if they reach a bit and draft a guy at #3 that will sign for #10 money.

I know players don't just slot in nicely in an exact order, but what would you rather have: the #3 and #40 talent, or the #10 and #11 talent?

I would think we could get most of the college guys at the top for less than slot value. If they don't sign, they have to go back to school and lose their leverage, so I would think we could get a guy like Lewis to sign for under-slot. But our savings to allow us to sign a premier talent at 40 would probably come mostly from later in the draft, not necessarily that top pick.

 

[Hudson2]

I've seen a few other places having Groome go at #3. I'm really hoping that happens. As much as I'd love a stud bat at 3 we could use a top of the rotation pitcher in the minors. We have a ton of SP depth but only 1 or 2 that could make a TOR sp.

 

[smootness]

I've seen a few other places having Groome go at #3. I'm really hoping that happens. As much as I'd love a stud bat at 3 we could use a top of the rotation pitcher in the minors. We have a ton of SP depth but only 1 or 2 that could make a TOR sp.

I totally disagree. Newcomb, Allard, Toussaint, and Fried at a minimum are potential TOR SP. I would also add Sims, Soroka, and maybe even Sanchez. We're not talking about Kershaw-like aces necessarily, but I absolutely think each of those guys, with the possible exception of Sanchez, have a ceiling of at least a good #2.

 

[striker42]

I've seen a few other places having Groome go at #3. I'm really hoping that happens. As much as I'd love a stud bat at 3 we could use a top of the rotation pitcher in the minors. We have a ton of SP depth but only 1 or 2 that could make a TOR sp.

While I think we have more arms with top flight potential, I agree that I'd love to have Groome fall to 3. It would be hard to not take him if that happens.

 

[Hudson2]

I totally disagree. Newcomb, Allard, Toussaint, and Fried at a minimum are potential TOR SP. I would also add Sims, Soroka, and maybe even Sanchez. We're not talking about Kershaw-like aces necessarily, but I absolutely think each of those guys, with the possible exception of Sanchez, have a ceiling of at least a good #2.

Newcomb and Allard were the 2 I was referring to. Toussaint has a ton of questions and hasn't shown he can be that guy at all. He has potential but if he doesn't show more growth this year then he probably wont. Sims went from good to terrible to good again so let's wait till the end of the year to show he can do it twice. No clue with Fried coming off TJ but I like him alot and think he could be a very good 3. Newcomb and Allard both have big concerns of their own right now. That's why we need as many options as possible and hopefully one without as my questions as the ones we have now.

 

[smootness]

Newcomb and Allard were the 2 I was referring to. Toussaint has a ton of questions and hasn't shown he can be that guy at all. He has potential but if he doesn't show more growth this year then he probably wont. Sims went from good to terrible to good again so let's wait till the end of the year to show he can do it twice. No clue with Fried coming off TJ but I like him alot and think he could be a very good 3. Newcomb and Allard both have big concerns of their own right now. That's why we need as many options as possible and hopefully one without as my questions as the ones we have now.

I agree that we need a lot of options because of what you said, but at some point we have to get a top bat. Otherwise we'll never have one. You can't just take pitchers over hitters at every chance because you need a lot of pitchers.

 

[Hudson2]

The Braves will never pay for an ace but have shown willingness to go after a hitter (Upton & Cespedes). None of the bats at the top of the draft look to be that bat we need. We'll have to either trade for it or sign it. Maitan, Guttierez, and possibly Lazarito are bats that we can develop down the line.

 

[smootness]

The Braves will never pay for an ace but have shown willingness to go after a hitter (Upton & Cespedes). None of the bats at the top of the draft look to be that bat we need. We'll have to either trade for it or sign it. Maitan, Guttierez, and possibly Lazarito are bats that we can develop down the line.

This is quite the assumption. There is no indication this is true.

And we didn't show willingness to go after a hitter by 'going after' Cespedes. That was never serious on our part. I agree about the international bats, but we don't even have them in the system yet and they're 16 years old. We need a legit bat that can move quickly through the system. There are a few options that could prove to be that at #3. That's where we need to go.

I just don't really get why you're discounting guys like Fried, Sims, and Toussaint yet seem willing to bank on some 16 year olds that are at least 4-5 years away.

 

[Hudson2]

Don't get me wrong, I like Sims, Touki, and Fried but I just don't see them as a 1 or a 2. The only 3 bats I like in the draft are Lewis and Ray with Rutherford not far behind. Groome if he should fall to 3 should no doubt be the pick. And with the international guys those are bats that will be added to the system, I'm not banking on anything. The Braves are a pitching first team and always have been. So with that they'll go back to drafting and developing that and add in hitting when they can. I'm fine with taking a bat at 3 I never said I wasn't, I just said if Groome was there at 3 he should be the pick.

 

[Carp]

The Braves will never pay for an ace but have shown willingness to go after a hitter (Upton & Cespedes). None of the bats at the top of the draft look to be that bat we need. We'll have to either trade for it or sign it. Maitan, Guttierez, and possibly Lazarito are bats that we can develop down the line.

The Braves are about to have a ton of money to spend with the contracts coming off the books, the new TV deal money, and a new ballpark going into 2017 (teams literally always spend more when opening a new stadium). So any free agency trends we may previously displayed can probably be thrown out the window moving forward.

 

[Hudson2]

The Braves are about to have a ton of money to spend with the contracts coming off the books, the new TV deal money, and a new ballpark going into 2017 (teams literally always spend more when opening a new stadium). So any free agency trends we may previously displayed can probably be thrown out the window moving forward.

If we were goin to get a pitcher I'd hope we would trade for Sonny Gray and extend him. Big fan of his.

 

[Russ2dollas]

U pick the best player.

At 3 it should be a tor starter or hitter with pop and contact skills.

I dislike all free agents in next years class. Not sure how we fill gigantic holes in corner of and catcher. So stop pretending we will be contenders nxt year. Sell the new park and albies and Swanson for a year.

Pick the best player. Hopefully we can hit on a college player in our first couple of picks who can fill a spot by 18. But if u don't see that guy grab another hs pitcher.

Best player and deal.

 

[smootness]

U pick the best player.

At 3 it should be a tor starter or hitter with pop and contact skills.

I dislike all free agents in next years class. Not sure how we fill gigantic holes in corner of and catcher. So stop pretending we will be contenders nxt year. Sell the new park and albies and Swanson for a year.

Pick the best player. Hopefully we can hit on a college player in our first couple of picks who can fill a spot by 18. But if u don't see that guy grab another hs pitcher.

Best player and deal.

Who is pretending? The FO isn't even talking about contending next year.

But I do agree with your overall point. I think we should take the BPA, and if we feel that a pitcher and hitter are of equal value there, then take the hitter, especially if it's a college player.

As for 3B and C, we won't fill them quickly. Albies and Swanson will fill 2B and SS, and Peterson will then become a super-utility who can play some 3B. And we'll still have Garcia as well, so you could see some kind of platoon there while we buy time for Ruiz or Riley to show up. At catcher, we're probably just going to have to wait. There is no quick-fix there.

But the other option is a trade if one opens itself up as a possibility. We will have plenty of money to spend, but that doesn't have to be spent in the FA market. It can also be spent when acquiring contracts in a trade.