SoxProspects News
|
|
|
|
Legal
Forum Ground Rules
The views expressed by the members of this Forum do not necessarily reflect the views of SoxProspects, LLC.
© 2003-2024 SoxProspects, LLC
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Home | Search | My Profile | Messages | Members | Help |
Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
2014 MLB Draft discussion
|
Post by peterjacksonj on Jan 2, 2014 21:30:27 GMT -5
I am a retired college coach, and was a associate scout for the A's. I scout mostly New England thru the Mid Atlantic area. I like the Beede kid and a couple of kids from the Va. Area. I was referred the Bellinger kinda and the Beede kid 5 or 6 years ago. Both of these kids are really good, great work ethic and have great coaches. People have to remember a scout's job is done after the draft, and the development staff and coaches start their jobs. There is not a scout anywhere that I know that fills out a lineup card in MLB.
|
|
|
Post by bmitchsox on Jan 3, 2014 13:17:00 GMT -5
Who are some guys you really want to see the Sox take? I think Ti' Quan Forbes would be a great pickup - very quick hands and a smooth swing, good pitch recognition. I think taking a shot at Bellinger would make sense too, his raw power is unreal, and we could use a slugging 1B. Dylan Cease is another guy, he has a great 2 seamer and plus curve. DJ Peters and Michael Chavis look solid as well.
|
|
|
Post by amfox1 on Jan 3, 2014 15:45:56 GMT -5
BA's top 20 collegiate draft-eligible prospects:
1. Carlos Rodon LHP, North Carolina State (1) 2. Jeff Hoffman RHP, East Carolina (2) 3. Trea Turner SS, North Carolina State (5) 4. Tyler Beede RHP, Vanderbilt (6) 5. Aaron Nola RHP, Louisiana State (11) 6. Luke Weaver RHP, Florida State (23) 7. Michael Conforto OF, Oregon State (28) 8. Bradley Zimmer OF, San Francisco (19) 9. Kyle Freeland LHP, Evansville (24) 10. Derek Fisher OF, Virginia (15) 11. Michael Cederoth RHP, San Diego State (27) 12. Nick Burdi RHP, Louisville (33) 13. Brandon Finnegan LHP, Texas Christian (21) 14. Matt Chapman 3B/RHP, Cal State Fullerton (30) 15. Sean Newcomb LHP, Hartford (17) 16. Kyle Schwarber C/1B, Indiana (14) 17. Erick Fedde RHP, UNLV (22) 18. Max Pentecost C, Kennesaw State (20) 19. Taylor Sparks 3B/1B, UC Irvine (NR) 20. J.D. Davis 1B/3B/RHP, Cal State Fullerton (45)
BA's top 20 HS draft-eligible prospects (with college commitment):
1. Tyler Kolek RHP (Texas Christian) (4) 2. Alex Jackson C/OF (Oregon) (3) 3. Jacob Gatewood SS/3B (Southern California) (7) 4. Brady Aiken LHP (UCLA) (9) 5. Touki Toussaint RHP (Vanderbilt) (8) 6. Luis Ortiz RHP (Fresno State) (16) 7. Kodi Medeiros LHP (Pepperdine) (25) 8. Cobi Johnson RHP (Florida State) (29) 9. Nick Gordon SS/RHP (Florida State) (12) 10. Braxton Davidson 1B/OF (North Carolina) (13) 11. Sean Reid-Foley RHP (Florida State) (31) 12. Alex Verdugo LHP/OF (Arizona State) (37) 13. Grant Holmes RHP (Florida) (18) 14. Scott Blewett RHP (St. Johns) (40) 15. Michael Gettys OF/RHP (Georgia) (10) 16. Mac Marshall LHP (Louisiana State) (34) 17. Michael Chavis 3B/2B (Clemson) (35) 18. Derek Hill OF (Oregon) (42) 19. Forrest Wall 2B (North Carolina) (NR) 20. Justus Sheffield LHP (Vanderbilt) (39)
MLB.com top 50 overall rankings in parenthesis.
Red Sox currently picks 28 and 32.
|
|
|
Post by stevedillard on Feb 4, 2014 9:53:00 GMT -5
With two weeks left before spring training, the five remaining QO free agents (Stephen Drew, Kendry Morales, Nelson Cruz, Ubaldo Jimenez and Ervin Santana) are having trouble finding takers because of the draft price tag. Like Drew, Morales may be looking at returning to Seattle, which would cancel the free agent picks. Cruz also is linked to his old team (Texas), but Baltimore, Seattle and Toronto (which has protected picks) are possible destinations. The market for the pitchers seems weak. Current 2014 MLB Draft Order (June 5-7, 2014)
1st Round (Protected)1. HOU 2. MIA 3. CWS 4. CHC 5. MIN 6. SEA 7. PHI 8. COL 9. TOR 10. NYM 11. TOR (Phil Bickford compensation pick) 12. MIL 13. SD 14. SF 15. LAA 16. ARI 17. BAL (MFY lost draft pick - McCann)18. KC 19. WAS 20. CIN (TEX lost draft pick - Choo)21. TB 22. CLE 23. LAD 24. DET 25. PIT 26. OAK 27. ATL 28. BOS29. STL Supplemental Round (picks for unsigned players with QO designations will slot in here, subject to #36 pick being fixed in place)(KC would slot here - Santana)30. CIN (Choo) (TEX would slot here - Cruz)(CLE would slot here - Jimenez)31. ATL (McCann) 32. BOS (Ellsbury)(BOS would slot here - Drew)33. STL (Beltran) Unsigned Players With QO Designations (5, in draft order):Morales (SEA)Santana (KC)Cruz (TEX)Jimenez (CLE)Drew (BOS)
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Feb 4, 2014 9:59:24 GMT -5
Morales may not sign before the draft. All the rest will.
|
|
|
Post by okin15 on Feb 4, 2014 11:01:03 GMT -5
This new QO system is effed. The NFL has already figured this out with restricted free agency for younger players (like Ellsbury, maybe Drew) and none of that for older guys (like Ortiz), PLUS QO's at multiple levels which are worth different picks. If the QO had been 18 million, only Ells woulda gotten one, but Salty, Napoli, Drew would have each gotten the lower level ones at maybe 12 million, only worth a 2nd round pick (or protected third maybe).
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Feb 4, 2014 11:43:35 GMT -5
Yeah, I can't see the QO system as currently instituted surviving the next CBA.
The reasoning behind compensation is well-meaning, but in practice it ends up creating a bunch of unintended consequences. The previous system incentivized rich teams playing free agent musical chairs. This system sticks it to good-but-not-great veteran players, with the reward in the risk-reward calculation weighted too heavily to a team.
I think the best thing to do is to get rid of compensation altogether.
|
|
theo
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by theo on Feb 4, 2014 11:50:03 GMT -5
I've done excessive scouting looking for who I believe the Sox should pick. I want to get your opinions but I think these are our best options.
Michael Conforto Cobi Johnson Sean Reid-Foley Scott Brewart Keaton McKinley
I think we can grab 3 out of 5 if Drew signs elsewhere. Conforto looks like a better Mike Carp. All of those starters are high floor, medium ceiling, with Brewart having potential for an ace.
|
|
|
Post by pedroelgrande on Feb 4, 2014 12:36:06 GMT -5
I like Keaton McKinney of that group and think he fits what they seem to look for, he big, strong and has perhaps the best change up in the class.
|
|
|
Post by bmitchsox on Feb 4, 2014 12:38:47 GMT -5
I really hope they use one of their first 2 picks on a power hitter. I agree with Michael Conforto, but I also wouldn't mind seeing them take Michael Chavis. Reid-Foley could be a solid set-up man.
I just hope they take some gambles on HS bats they think could pay off big. Maybe guys like Justin Bellinger, Travis Jones, Kel Johnson or Zach Sullivan.
|
|
|
Post by wskeleton76 on Feb 4, 2014 13:07:28 GMT -5
I love two HS bats such as Alex Verdugo and Ti'quan Forbes. I like Keaton McKinney too. All three could be available. Definitely this draft is pretty deep.
|
|
|
Post by kman22 on Feb 4, 2014 13:37:22 GMT -5
These 4 intrigue me and, based on mlb.com's rankings, could be available to the Red Sox.
Michael Conforto Monte Harrison Dylan Davis Kodi Medeiros
Based on BA's rankings:
Davidson and Schwarber.
I'm hoping the draft falls closer to BA's rankings. Unfortunately, a lot of the rankings will be drastically different come June. Corner power is the target in my mind, although if they end up with 3 firsts, I'd imagine they'd come away with a pitcher as well.
|
|
theo
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by theo on Feb 4, 2014 14:12:09 GMT -5
Chavis is supposed to have 55 tools across the boards, nothing plus. I think johnson is real special because he already throws a great change up and tight curve. Reid foley looks more like a starter than a reliever if you watch tape. 4 pitches with above average potential.
|
|
|
Post by bmitchsox on Feb 5, 2014 18:12:08 GMT -5
Alex Verdugo looks solid! Projected as roughly a 2nd or 3rd rounder too
|
|
|
Post by wskeleton76 on Feb 5, 2014 19:08:17 GMT -5
Alex Verdugo looks solid! Projected as roughly a 2nd or 3rd rounder too No, he is very good. Clearly 1st rounder. This guy has great baseball instinct, barrel awareness, short and powerful swing. Law ranked him #13.
|
|
|
Post by pedroelgrande on Feb 5, 2014 19:56:55 GMT -5
I'm sure you guys know this but it's way to early to think who could be available, there is a long spring season ahead of us.
I'd rather focus on the talent and what are we looking for instead of where they will fall.
On Verdugo he's a two-way guy so yeah put him on your list of candidates.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Feb 7, 2014 10:04:16 GMT -5
I really hope they do away with the draft spending limits in the next CBA change it to take away spending caps. I don't buy the argument that it's a more level playing field or now the emphasis now goes towards having better scouting and development. This isn't a league like football or even basketball where you draft players then play them. So many years go by between prospects being drafted and playing in MLB which increases the outside uncontrollable variables.
The bigger issue is there wasn't a true economic inequality to fix. Small market teams could easily spend as much or more as big market teams. The new system prevents a bad team from committing money up and down the draft and almost forces them to be bad to have more resources to spend in the draft and internationally. I'm against most environments that rewards losing. If you are worried about things going to astronomical levels then put hard caps at reasonable figures. Hard cap means you cannot go over no matter what and if you hit your limit your draftees unsigned are free agents.
For example... Quick numbers not fully thought thru - for example only
Individual player bonus in draft - cap at 7m Total team bonus $ in draft - cap at 12m Individual player bonus international - cap at 4m (or do sliding scale based on age.. Younger =less) Total team bonus $ international - 7m
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Feb 7, 2014 11:47:49 GMT -5
I really hope they do away with the draft spending limits in the next CBA change it to take away spending caps. I don't buy the argument that it's a more level playing field or now the emphasis now goes towards having better scouting and development. This isn't a league like football or even basketball where you draft players then play them. So many years go by between prospects being drafted and playing in MLB which increases the outside uncontrollable variables. The bigger issue is there wasn't a true economic inequality to fix. Small market teams could easily spend as much or more as big market teams. The new system prevents a bad team from committing money up and down the draft and almost forces them to be bad to have more resources to spend in the draft and internationally. I'm against most environments that rewards losing. If you are worried about things going to astronomical levels then put hard caps at reasonable figures. Hard cap means you cannot go over no matter what and if you hit your limit your draftees unsigned are free agents. I disagree with pretty much all of this. With some exceptions (like the Pirates in the last uncapped year), small market teams weren't the ones routinely going for overslot guys in the draft or big bonus IFAs. Instead, teams like the Red Sox and and the Yankees flexed their financial muscle there and were the real beneficiaries of that system. Moreover, while development in baseball is somewhat longer and more uncertain than in the other major sports, there was still pretty clear surplus value to be derived from overslot spending. While the new CBA hurt the Red Sox by limiting their ability to routinely go overslot, it's better for small-market teams as a whole. If draft spending is a market inefficiency (and I don't think anyone thinks it isn't), big market teams will learn to exploit it more effectively than small market teams. I also think your fear of "tanking" is misplaced-- the fact that the MLB development path is so long and winding and that baseball lacks a clear cornerstone position like QB in football or any superstar player in basketball means incentives for tanking will almost never be that great, at least unless there's a Harper/ARod-level generational talent available in the draft. For instance, even though they definitely won't be playoff contenders this year, the Astros nonetheless have made it clear that they want to be a significantly better team than they were last year, in large part because they know that being the perennially worst team in baseball has more disadvantages (inability to attract free agents, poor ticket sales) than advantages (high draft picks/IFA pools).
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Feb 7, 2014 12:32:42 GMT -5
You think the Astros are a good example to use? I think they work more to prove my point. They did what they could to drain their MLB roster the last couple years. Purposely not spending money so they could stink and restock their system. They took the higher bonus money, drafted a player they could save money, to spread over the rest of the draft. Good strategy, that's fine, but they put nothing on the field to resemble a major league team. You'll have a hard time convincing me that they would have done the same thing if they could have spent whatever they wanted in the draft regardless of their MLB record. Just because they've done minor things this year, doesn't alter anything. There's only so long you can go losing 106 games a year; plus they have prospects they are starting to integrate so they need to start crawling back to respectability. But adding Feldman and Fowler, won't really do too much to help that so they are still going to lose 90+ games.
The Cubs have been shedding payroll the last couple years too, getting high draft picks and waiting for their system to restock. Their pay roll is going to drop easily below 100m this year and their effective payroll is a lot less than that since they are paying Soriano 18m to play for the Yankees. I mean if you are trying to be good, it makes a lot of sense to pay Soriano that much money to play for the Yankees.
Look at what draft spending is when compared to a percentage of overall budgets for these teams. Also, look at the differences year to year between overall team spending for big to small market teams. If you look at it as a percentage of draft spending, it may look lopsided in some cases, but if you look at it from overall budget monies it's nothing. You're talking a few million dollars difference. There aren't many, if any, small market teams that didn't spend in the draft because they couldn't' afford it. spending an extra 3m in the draft isn't even on the same planet as free agent monies. Just because some teams weren't smart enough or willing to do it, doesn't' make the system one of inequality.
I'm not knocking the team strategies. It makes no sense to spend money if it's a lot better to stink to get more money to spend on young players. This isn't even a big market vs small market thing, either. Cubs are a big market team, but it makes sense for them to pay 14m for Soriano to play for the Yankees for 2 reasons. Get a solid prospect (Corey Black who projects as a likely reliever) and lose extra games to get more bonus money. Black himself is not worth 14m, but when you don't want to win; he's a nice prize to get.
Time will tell as I'm assuming they don't change anything, but it's a concern of mine that the new system will promote losing. The old one did not and I believe firmly that small market teams could easily spend what some big market teams were spending. The total monies weren't all that different. Maybe a slotting system can work to some degree, but it goes too far, in my opinion. Teams should not be incentivized to lose by being rewarded with more money to spend.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Feb 7, 2014 13:01:36 GMT -5
You seem to think what the Astros and Cubs are doing is some new strategy-- it decidedly is not. Teams have always traded away their MLB talent for prospects if they weren't competing (see, e.g., the 2008-11 Padres). Owners have always been hesitant to spend money in free agency if the team does not project to be a playoff contender. Losing teams have always received higher draft picks, which represent a far better bang-for-your-buck than overslot signings (see the link I posted above-- early first-round picks have a much higher surplus value than overslot signings). The addition of the draft spending cap had only a minor marginal effect, as the old system absolutely promoting losing almost as much as the new one does. The difference is that the old system also benefited big-market teams who have the cash flow to invest significantly in overslot amateur talent acquisition year after year.
|
|
|
Post by kman22 on Feb 7, 2014 13:05:43 GMT -5
I think the point is that by being terrible and getting a bigger bonus pool, you can now out spend all the other teams throughout the draft by going underslot with the #1 overall pick. This rewards the teams that are terrible by giving them the financial advantage that they were trying to eliminate with these new rules.
At least that's how I'm reading the previous post.
|
|
|
Post by okin15 on Feb 7, 2014 13:25:24 GMT -5
I think the point is that by being terrible and getting a bigger bonus pool, you can now out spend all the other teams throughout the draft by going underslot with the #1 overall pick. This rewards the teams that are terrible by giving them the financial advantage that they were trying to eliminate with these new rules. At least that's how I'm reading the previous post. Which of course is not at all the argument he made earlier in this thread. It is certainly a little sad to reward teams for doing poorly. There should probably be a much higher salary floor so that MLB doesn't turn into the NBA where you only want to be at one end of the spectrum (win it all or top draft pick). In the end, it's really difficult to define a set of rules which fairly distributes talent while incentivizing every team to win. But I agree with JMei's first post whole-heartedly.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Feb 7, 2014 13:26:25 GMT -5
Maybe it's an additional advantage, but getting the number one pick is still much more cost-effective in terms of projected surplus value than going overslot on a few mid-round picks. The main draw is still the same-- one of the top few picks in the draft.
|
|
|
Post by pedroelgrande on Feb 7, 2014 13:29:33 GMT -5
Abolish the draft!!!! Ain't America about free markets? Anyways I hate the caps.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Feb 7, 2014 13:39:55 GMT -5
Some history here: The Astros started down this road a while back. The owner decided to roll the dice and he lost. The chaos that followed has only lately even started to resemble some sort of rational business model. If anyone thinks that constitutes a hidden plan, I'd beg to differ. They had their collective heads buried so deeply in the sand, they did nothing but suck dirt since the last time they made it to the playoffs.
|
|
|