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.
2016 MLB Draft
|
Post by dnfl333 on Apr 24, 2016 20:31:23 GMT -5
Organization needs to develop a legit SP asap. What college arm do you take?
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Apr 24, 2016 21:57:10 GMT -5
I don't think there's a sure-fire college arm at 12. Jeffries is probably a safe bet, but I see him as more 3 than 1a/2. A.J. Puk has #1 stuff but serious control/command issues. I like Anthony Kay from UConn, but he's more of a "I hope they get a lucky break and nab him in the second round" kind of guy. Not sure there's anyone who meets your standard. Like I said, Ian Anderson is probably the best mix of upside/projectability/liklihood to be at 12 as there is, but he's a HSer. As usual, I hope they go BPA, but I also hope BPA is a high-upside pitcher. Still plenty of time for someone to pull a Benintendi and generate some serious helium.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Apr 24, 2016 22:02:26 GMT -5
Tbh, I kinda like the idea of Cal Quantrill as a potential under-slot, and maybe a few big over-slot deals in the later rounds. Quantrill is a TOR talent.
|
|
|
Post by jdb on Apr 25, 2016 7:57:31 GMT -5
Lesser pitching prospects (Feede) closer to their TJ surgeries haven't had to go much if any under slot so I doubt Quantrill will. He's a guy who I'm anxious to hear about what his medicals say but if they are fine he may not last to 12. I really like Shore as a college arm. I think he's a safe bet barring injury to be a MLB starter and enough upside to see a good #2-3ish. Good control, has seen a spike in K's this year and gets ground balls with his sinker. I hope to see him live on Friday when the Gators come to town.
|
|
|
Post by azblue on Apr 25, 2016 10:05:26 GMT -5
Taking the best available pitcher is great if he is also the best available player. However, if the best player available on the team's pre-draft list is a position player who your scouts have ranked as the No. 5 player in the draft, and the best pitcher available is No. 17 on their list, why would the Sox not take the best available player regardless of the importance of developing pitching?
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Apr 25, 2016 23:04:21 GMT -5
Lesser pitching prospects (Feede) closer to their TJ surgeries haven't had to go much if any under slot so I doubt Quantrill will. He's a guy who I'm anxious to hear about what his medicals say but if they are fine he may not last to 12. I really like Shore as a college arm. I think he's a safe bet barring injury to be a MLB starter and enough upside to see a good #2-3ish. Good control, has seen a spike in K's this year and gets ground balls with his sinker. I hope to see him live on Friday when the Gators come to town. I think Quantrill is more like Hoffman, who was considered a fair bet to go top-3 pre-TJ. He went 9th, so you may be right, they might not save all that much by taking him at 12, if he reaches them there. I think the big question is more about the depth of collegiate arms, and the overall strength of the draft. The 2014 draft was pretty weak, so I could see Quantrill dropping out of the top-10. There's talk of Toronto taking him, but I highly doubt he falls that far. But with Groome, Pint, Anderson, Puk, Jones, +/- Jeffries, +/- Hanson, etc, there are a lot of arms who could slot in before 12.
|
|
|
Post by wskeleton76 on Apr 25, 2016 23:10:55 GMT -5
Pitching is the strength of this year' draft as well as our need. I like Ian Anderson too. He looks like Matt Barnes with better curve and changeup. Could be #2 pitcher with 65+ fastball, 60 curve, and 55 changeup.
|
|
|
Post by vermontsox1 on Apr 26, 2016 8:41:13 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by sibbysisti on Apr 26, 2016 10:30:44 GMT -5
Is Cal Quantrill the son of former Sox, Paul? Seems so, since he's a Torontonian.
Never mind. I found this search engine called Google, and it confirmed it.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Apr 26, 2016 12:46:49 GMT -5
Taking the best available pitcher is great if he is also the best available player. However, if the best player available on the team's pre-draft list is a position player who your scouts have ranked as the No. 5 player in the draft, and the best pitcher available is No. 17 on their list, why would the Sox not take the best available player regardless of the importance of developing pitching? I absolutely agree; earlier I made the point that I hope the BPA is a pitcher, simply because they could use pitchers. But you never want to see your team punt a high pick just to fill a perceived need. OTOH, if they were to take a very high-upside, moderate-risk player like Quantrill, who arguably *may* be BPA (because that concept is, by nature, highly subjective, and based on return vs risk), and could parlay some savings into one or two significant talent bumps at other draft positions, there's a certain real value to that. I advocated taking Aiken last year (I'm ecstatic that they took Benintendi, who was also at the top of my list), and I think the same "benefit" applies. If there's a player (like Benintendi) that the team *really* likes, they take him. But I'm all for going with the post-TJ risk in a superbly talented prospect and maybe saving a few bucks over, say, Connor Jones or Daulton Jeffries or anyone else who isn't a true standout talent but is a "reasonable" 12th pick. They're talented enough, young enough, and have deep enough pockets to take that risk I think.
|
|
|
Post by larrycook on Apr 26, 2016 21:05:43 GMT -5
Taking the best available pitcher is great if he is also the best available player. However, if the best player available on the team's pre-draft list is a position player who your scouts have ranked as the No. 5 player in the draft, and the best pitcher available is No. 17 on their list, why would the Sox not take the best available player regardless of the importance of developing pitching? if we do indeed draft a pitcher, should we take the best college arm available or the best high school arm available?
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Apr 27, 2016 12:02:09 GMT -5
Maximum upside, IMO, with willingness to take on a little more risk to get it, regardless of whether it's a position player or pitcher. They've got Price and Porcello for 3 and 4 years, and Rodriguez for 5. Espinoza and Kopech both due within that timeframe. Owens and Johnson and Wright. Plenty of mid-back options. They've also got a horde of positional prospects and young MLBers. I say take a shot at finding a superstar, even if it's only 10-20%, over a 50-60% chance at a solid regular (those are guesses, but you get my drift).
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Apr 27, 2016 14:03:30 GMT -5
I disagree with the idea that you can define the ceiling of draft prospects well enough that it is worthwhile to emphasize high ceilings over solid regulars.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Apr 27, 2016 21:48:34 GMT -5
I disagree with the idea that you can define the ceiling of draft prospects well enough that it is worthwhile to emphasize high ceilings over solid regulars. Do you seriously have that little regard for scouting ?
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Apr 27, 2016 23:25:12 GMT -5
I disagree with the idea that you can define the ceiling of draft prospects well enough that it is worthwhile to emphasize high ceilings over solid regulars. I'd have to emphatically disagree, with the first determinant being college vs HS, where teams are trading risk (2-3 years' development, and the challenge of more advanced competition) vs. pure talent. Any group of players "reasonable" for a given slot are "reasonable" based on a combination of scouting assessment of upside and risk. I can understand your arguing the difficulty in teasing out star potential versus "solid" potential, but if you took, say, Meadows, Frazier, and Moran, it's pretty clear who teams saw as high-upside and high-risk versus moderate-upside and moderate risk. For any given high draft slot, there's a pretty clear inverse correlation between the two such that the "sum" fits the draft slot, within reason and excluding external considerations such as under/over-slot bonuses.
|
|
|
Post by okin15 on Apr 28, 2016 8:34:19 GMT -5
I don't know that being further away necessarily means higher ceiling. Pedroia and Ellsbury aren't just "solid regulars", but both were college picks.
More importantly, I think JMei isn't arguing we should take floor over ceiling, but that the ceiling is unknowable for many if not all picks, so we should go for abilities where we can see them, rather than for guys perceived to be wild cards. I don't see risk and ceiling as correlated (for instance, I'd be high risk and low ceiling as a baseball prospect). I feel that the best determination of ceiling is based on present abilities, skills and athleticism, and while there are certain guys (the soccer player who takes up baseball) who might have a higher ceiling than their current results would suggest, this relationship is not inversely proportional as you suggest, but highly individual.
|
|
|
Post by vermontsox1 on Apr 28, 2016 13:27:41 GMT -5
MLB.com released their updated rankings: m.mlb.com/prospects/2016?list=draft1. Jason Groome, LHP 2. Riley Pint, RHP 3. Kyle Lewis, OF 4. Corey Ray, OF 5. AJ Puk, LHP 6. Mickey Moniak, OF 7. Blake Rutherford, OF 8. Dalvin Perez 9. Nick Senzel, 3B 10. Dakota Hudson, RHP 11. Ian Anderson, RHP 12. Joey Wentz, LHP 13. Forrest Whitley, RHP 14. Braxton Garrett, LHP 15. Connor Jones, RHP
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Apr 28, 2016 13:59:52 GMT -5
I don't know that being further away necessarily means higher ceiling. Pedroia and Ellsbury aren't just "solid regulars", but both were college picks. More importantly, I think JMei isn't arguing we should take floor over ceiling, but that the ceiling is unknowable for many if not all picks, so we should go for abilities where we can see them, rather than for guys perceived to be wild cards. I don't see risk and ceiling as correlated (for instance, I'd be high risk and low ceiling as a baseball prospect). I feel that the best determination of ceiling is based on present abilities, skills and athleticism, and while there are certain guys (the soccer player who takes up baseball) who might have a higher ceiling than their current results would suggest, this relationship is not inversely proportional as you suggest, but highly individual. I think you're misunderstanding my point. A team picking 1/1 is picking a player (financial concerns aside) with the best combination of upside (ceiling) and liklihood of reaching that ceiling (risk). In each successive slot (or really, often, group of slots, since teams don't all rank players the same), there's some sacrifice of either taking on risk (less chance a player reaches his ceiling) or less projected upside. Obviously, college does not universally equal "low upside." But generally, college picks (Brendan Rogers vs Dansby Swanson is a great example) in a similar tier are seen as having maybe less impressive tools, but are more polished and carry less risk. Even within the same age tier (college vs HS), there are players who have generally louder tools than their counterparts but are maybe bigger question marks due to weaker competition, injury history, or specific skill set weaknesses (anticipated defensive position change, lack of a polished third pitch, etc.). I think jmei's point is on the subtlety of projecting a small future difference in ceiling, which I get. Maybe that's a product of how I conveyed my initial thoughts. Simply, I prefer that the team draft more heavily on tools/upside than necessarily on confidence that the player will translate them to MLB.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Apr 28, 2016 14:10:07 GMT -5
I don't know that being further away necessarily means higher ceiling. Pedroia and Ellsbury aren't just "solid regulars", but both were college picks. More importantly, I think JMei isn't arguing we should take floor over ceiling, but that the ceiling is unknowable for many if not all picks, so we should go for abilities where we can see them, rather than for guys perceived to be wild cards. I don't see risk and ceiling as correlated (for instance, I'd be high risk and low ceiling as a baseball prospect). I feel that the best determination of ceiling is based on present abilities, skills and athleticism, and while there are certain guys (the soccer player who takes up baseball) who might have a higher ceiling than their current results would suggest, this relationship is not inversely proportional as you suggest, but highly individual. Actually, on re-reading what you said, we're probably pretty close. I'm simply equating current tools to "upside." I'm also not claiming that risk and upside are correlated, which would be patently silly. It's just that, at a given draft slot, there's a "sum" appropriate for that slot. Teams take players who they think represent the best of both (high ceiling, liklihood of reaching that ceiling). Often, they will sacrifice some of one to get more of the other. I'm not a fan of the low-risk, Colin Moran-type pick, especially with a high pick, that's all.
|
|
|
Post by wskeleton76 on Apr 28, 2016 19:24:38 GMT -5
Braxton Garrett looks good too. Two potential plus secondary pitches. Fastball is + 50 right now while he is so projectable. I love his delivery.
|
|
|
Post by voiceofreason on Apr 29, 2016 10:25:45 GMT -5
I still like Will Benson. He has dropped way back from last year so it would be too much of a reach but he has the high ceiling I like. Would it be too much of a reach?
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Apr 29, 2016 13:56:31 GMT -5
I still like Will Benson. He has dropped way back from last year so it would be too much of a reach but he has the high ceiling I like. Would it be too much of a reach? Too much of a reach at 12, and probably (maybe) just good enough not to fall to their 2nd-rd pick. Unless the pull some Royals-style Manaea switcheroo, that is.
|
|
|
Post by ramireja on Apr 29, 2016 14:27:29 GMT -5
Is Dakota Hudson for real? Anyone interested in him at #12?
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Apr 29, 2016 14:41:18 GMT -5
Is Dakota Hudson for real? Anyone interested in him at #12? I like his stuff. He's had issues with command in the past, but from what I've read it's been consistently better since last summer. He's on the older side for a Jr (turns 22 later in the summer), but he could move quickly if his command improvements are for real. Certainly has 1a/2 stuff.
|
|
|
Post by wskeleton76 on Apr 29, 2016 23:02:12 GMT -5
|
|
|