|
Post by vermontsox1 on Jun 4, 2019 18:57:01 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 4, 2019 18:59:11 GMT -5
I was reading the MLB article on the top Draft prospect in each state and for Alaska they had Jacob Woodall, but in the Draft Tracker the only player from Alaska listed is Brody Jessee. I Googled both names and they appear to both be real, so does anybody know what's up here?
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Jun 4, 2019 19:58:19 GMT -5
Callis said he is a starter all the way but with the two year naval commitment. Waiting 2 years is better than waiting forever like they do with all their pitching draft picks over the last decade.
|
|
|
Post by dirtdog on Jun 4, 2019 20:02:26 GMT -5
Callis said he is a starter all the way but with the two year naval commitment. Waiting 2 years is better than waiting forever like they do with all their pitching draft picks over the last decade. Groome and Ball come immediately to mind.
|
|
|
Post by dirtdog on Jun 4, 2019 20:05:36 GMT -5
Maybe the military lets him out a little early, not impossible.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Jun 4, 2019 20:10:05 GMT -5
In general it seems as though the pitchers fall into the Bannister philosophy of higher ceiling because of a plus pitch but lower floor because of things that need to be addressed.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Jun 4, 2019 20:13:56 GMT -5
Assuming the top 10 sign, where would you place them in the top 60 on this site? Real quick, here is my view: Lugo @ 5 Cannon @ 6 Song @ 12 * (this is a tough one) Zeferjahn @ 13 Groshans @ 25 Scroggins @ 30 Murphy @ 34 Bell @ 38 Scott @ 40 Dalton @ 42 All 10 in the top 42 ? That's either an optimistic view of the draft or a pessimistic view of the existing system.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Jun 4, 2019 20:14:51 GMT -5
Waiting 2 years is better than waiting forever like they do with all their pitching draft picks over the last decade. Groome and Ball come immediately to mind. Right but you can almost include every pitcher drafted. Who’s one pitcher that they drafted besides Matt Barnes, who was drafted in 2011!!!, that’s made any sort of impact here.... i must be missing someone... it’s a pathetic track record...
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Jun 4, 2019 20:22:11 GMT -5
Assuming the top 10 sign, where would you place them in the top 60 on this site? Real quick, here is my view: Lugo @ 5 Cannon @ 6 Song @ 12 * (this is a tough one) Zeferjahn @ 13 Groshans @ 25 Scroggins @ 30 Murphy @ 34 Bell @ 38 Scott @ 40 Dalton @ 42 All 10 in the top 42 ? That's either an optimistic view of the draft or a pessimistic view of the existing system. Well the system is pretty damn weak at the moment so there’s that..
|
|
danr
Veteran
Posts: 1,871
|
Post by danr on Jun 4, 2019 20:22:22 GMT -5
Assuming the top 10 sign, where would you place them in the top 60 on this site? Real quick, here is my view: Lugo @ 5 Cannon @ 6 Song @ 12 * (this is a tough one) Zeferjahn @ 13 Groshans @ 25 Scroggins @ 30 Murphy @ 34 Bell @ 38 Scott @ 40 Dalton @ 42 Years ago I argued that new players should not be put in the rankings until someone sees them play and reports on them. Obviously, I lost the argument. I still believe it is silly to put any of these drafted players in the rankings until they are in the system.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Jun 4, 2019 20:29:09 GMT -5
Groome and Ball come immediately to mind. Right but you can almost include every pitcher drafted. Who’s one pitcher that they drafted besides Matt Barnes, who was drafted in 2011!!!, that’s made any sort of impact here.... i must be missing someone... it’s a pathetic track record... So I think this is correct... looked quickly... from the 2007 draft forward, the pitchers who you can say made some sort of impact are: Barnes Brian Johnson Brandon Workman That list is so bad I don’t even know what to say.... It’s covered different GMs and scouting departments so what gives?
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Jun 4, 2019 20:30:22 GMT -5
Assuming the top 10 sign, where would you place them in the top 60 on this site? Real quick, here is my view: Lugo @ 5 Cannon @ 6 Song @ 12 * (this is a tough one) Zeferjahn @ 13 Groshans @ 25 Scroggins @ 30 Murphy @ 34 Bell @ 38 Scott @ 40 Dalton @ 42 Years ago I argued that new players should not be put in the rankings until someone sees them play and reports on them. Obviously, I lost the argument. I still believe it is silly to put any of these drafted players in the rankings until they are in the system. Rankings are such an inexact science and are really for entertainment and ability to identify player purposes so what’s the point in leaving them out?
|
|
danr
Veteran
Posts: 1,871
|
Post by danr on Jun 4, 2019 21:13:43 GMT -5
I understand why they have value and I like following them as much as anyone else. However, if you go back and look at ratings some are quite good but many were comically wrong. Human beings are very unpredictable. One other point is that the players see these ratings and it may be unfair to some to have ratings before they ever have stepped on a field for the Sox. Overall, it isn't a big deal.
|
|
|
Post by orion09 on Jun 4, 2019 21:45:29 GMT -5
Isn’t it really unusual not to contact a pick before drafting? What if they have crazy bonus demands, don’t like the team etc?
|
|
|
Post by redsox71 on Jun 4, 2019 21:45:45 GMT -5
Years ago I argued that new players should not be put in the rankings until someone sees them play and reports on them. Obviously, I lost the argument. I still believe it is silly to put any of these drafted players in the rankings until they are in the system. Rankings are such an inexact science and are really for entertainment and ability to identify player purposes so what’s the point in leaving them out? I feel this is somewhat cherrypicking. I mean sure it's not great, but what about the impact position players drafted during that same timeframe? Pretty lengthy list I bet. Or drafted pitchers used in trade packages to acquire impact talent? That's an extension of the draft. Would seem this speaks more to the fragility or volitility of pitching in general, vs developing position players. Take a look at 30 of the best SPs in the game right now and how many were drafted by that team and/or outside the top 10 picks, where the Sox arent typically picking (Trey Ball disaster aside)... Snell (TB had like 100 picks in the top 40 that yr) DeGrom and Walker Beuhler, anyone else? I also think theres improvement coming in that regard as well Edit: I quoted the wrong post. I'm sorry.
|
|
|
Post by azblue on Jun 4, 2019 22:01:28 GMT -5
This is intentional. Each will be signed for approximately $10,000 with the savings being available for difficult signs who drop in the draft. Why would Murphy, Bell, Dalton, and Scroggins sign for that? They are juniors and going to get paid or go back to school. Scott in rd 10 yes. My bad. Dangers of multitasking. I expected the Red Sox to follow the path that they took several times during the last few years and erroneously assumed they were seniors.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Jun 4, 2019 22:02:18 GMT -5
Tommy John guy, red shirt junior
Shut down for a few weeks this April with elbow soreness, but checked out clean.
As a redshirt Jr, do you think that affects his bonus much? He obviously has the leverage of going back to school, but age and Sr status next year really cut into his leverage. I’d hope they could save some vs slot.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Jun 4, 2019 22:11:00 GMT -5
Rankings are such an inexact science and are really for entertainment and ability to identify player purposes so what’s the point in leaving them out? I feel this is somewhat cherrypicking. I mean sure it's not great, but what about the impact position players drafted during that same timeframe? Pretty lengthy list I bet. Or drafted pitchers used in trade packages to acquire impact talent? That's an extension of the draft. Would seem this speaks more to the fragility or volitility of pitching in general, vs developing position players. Take a look at 30 of the best SPs in the game right now and how many were drafted by that team and/or outside the top 10 picks, where the Sox arent typically picking (Trey Ball disaster aside)... Snell (TB had like 100 picks in the top 40 that yr) DeGrom and Walker Beuhler, anyone else? I also think theres improvement coming in that regard as well Edit: I quoted the wrong post. I'm sorry. 3 guys, 2 of which really are replacement level types, since 2007 isn’t cherry picking. Position players are irrelevant to the discussion. I wasn’t saying they suck at everything; they just are terrible at developing any type of pitching whatsoever - they can’t even get back end starters or middle relievers. This really isn’t a hot take. The question is why?
|
|
|
Post by RedSoxStats on Jun 4, 2019 22:15:43 GMT -5
As a redshirt Jr, do you think that affects his bonus much? He obviously has the leverage of going back to school, but age and Sr status next year really cut into his leverage. I’d hope they could save some vs slot. 100% guess here... but he's a legit guy and teams don't price gouge guys. If they called and asked him if he would take a super low offer why would he say yes? He could just say no and tomorrow get 125K from any team. I could be way off. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
|
|
|
Post by thegoodthebadthesox on Jun 4, 2019 22:16:16 GMT -5
I understand why they have value and I like following them as much as anyone else. However, if you go back and look at ratings some are quite good but many were comically wrong. Human beings are very unpredictable. One other point is that the players see these ratings and it may be unfair to some to have ratings before they ever have stepped on a field for the Sox. Overall, it isn't a big deal. But the ratings are wrong even if people have seen the players in person, so why does it matter if these draftees are put on the SP list before they've played a game? One at bat does not drastically improve the likelihood of success.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Jun 4, 2019 22:17:36 GMT -5
The first two rounds have "blow up the draft" potential. We'll know after 4 or 5 rounds tomorrow.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Jun 4, 2019 22:32:15 GMT -5
As a redshirt Jr, do you think that affects his bonus much? He obviously has the leverage of going back to school, but age and Sr status next year really cut into his leverage. I’d hope they could save some vs slot. 100% guess here... but he's a legit guy and teams don't price gouge guys. If they called and asked him if he would take a super low offer why would he say yes? He could just say no and tomorrow get 125K from any team. I could be way off. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Good point. In a way it’s almost comforting, since it suggests they genuinely like him as a talent. Doesn’t look like they’ll have much “extra” to spend later on d3 guys, depending on what happens with Song. Only 1 Sr sign, and I’ve gotta think if Cannon is slightly under then Lugo is probably over. In general, though, I think they may be able to scoop a few of those low-6-figure HS players in the $250k-400k range since their overage affords them roughly $220K, and they should save *something* on their two Sr signs. Very different approach to this draft versus last year, but they got three premium talents (one with a big ?), and several pretty solid picks after. I’ve gotta wonder if they have some day 3 late-rounders a la Howlett who they really like and think they can ink for not much more than allowable max ($100k?) without eating too much into pool $.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Jun 5, 2019 0:11:41 GMT -5
In general it seems as though the pitchers fall into the Bannister philosophy of higher ceiling because of a plus pitch but lower floor because of things that need to be addressed. I like that; I think you’ve gotta take some chances if you wanna hit big, and my sense is that the organization (sort of like their approach to relievers) thinks they can tap into some adjustments to delivery, sequencing, mix, etc that can help them hit on at least one. I read a few quotes from Bannister about SPs, and definitely came away with the sense that it’s a very specific and limited “natural” toolset that allows guys to stick as starters. Seems like they’re taking their shots at guys who check those innate boxes, with the hope that they can develop the “skills” to make them successful. Frankly, my preference is for the broader outcome curves, even if the floors are lower, because premium talent is a lot tougher to come by than adequate. It’s worth several failures to find the one who works as a 1/2/3, versus developing a whole passel of swingmen. Get those boys to Driveline!
|
|
|
Post by johnsilver52 on Jun 5, 2019 2:07:24 GMT -5
The first two rounds have "blow up the draft" potential. We'll know after 4 or 5 rounds tomorrow. Guessing myself a different philosophy this year after no senior picks, except for round 10 and no low upside pitchers either apparently. Appears to be possible only smaller overslot player(s) targeted, unless they think somehow Lugo/Cannon will sign for upwards of 10% less than slot and wouldn't bet any bank on that.
|
|
|
Post by soxfanatic on Jun 5, 2019 6:12:23 GMT -5
Could the names of this draft class be anymore masculine? lol
|
|