|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Jan 26, 2014 23:11:37 GMT -5
I was disappointed in now the draft fell, but I am on board with Ball. Meadows would have been OK in my mind (at the time, he has played really well since), but if it was a bat, I wanted the Red Sox to take Dominic Smith. Power from 1B and he can field the position well. Ervin would have been a reach, the kind of player that they can nab at the end of the 1st each year. Maybe he outperforms expectations, but since you can't trade 1st round picks, they needed to take the highest rated player on their board, which appears to have been Ball. This sums up my feelings exactly. I was disappointed by the first six picks (in my opinion at the time the six best players went 1-6). I wanted meadows or smith. Ball however was a pretty good possibility and I posted immediately before the pick "I bet they do something unexpected and take Ball". Ball was a top ten pick, he is further away than others, so we will need to more patient with him. I felt the same way. I was hoping for Kohl Stewart or Clint Frazier or I should say especially Clint Frazier. I wasn't sure what to make of the Ball pick, and I'm still not sure, but from what I've read it seems like he may be one of the only arms in the farm system that could be a possible #1 which is intriguing, but young arms scare me and it's possible he could flame out and get hurt, which is why I thought they'd go with Meadows or Smith, but what do I know? I remember being very disappointed with the Sox for not picking Josh Bell when they wasted two picks in the supplemental round of the draft on guys named Owens and Bradley. Shows what I know. |
|
|
|
Post by taftreign on Jan 27, 2014 0:06:10 GMT -5
I too liked Meadows as an option given the board at pick 7 but was surprised by the Ball pick somewhat as I thought Shipley was more likely. For a college pitcher he still seems to represent additional upside. Ball probably offers more upside but a little more risk. Perhaps being a lefty (Ball) vs a righty (Shipley) was also a factor. If I recall I had Smith behind Shipley and Meadows plus Frazier.
|
|
|
|
Post by iakovos11 on Jan 27, 2014 8:34:06 GMT -5
Wasn't the Ball selection made at the recommendation of the new scout they hired away from the Angels (Eddie Bane, I think) - the one that recommended the Angels select Trout.
|
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Jan 27, 2014 9:57:21 GMT -5
Wasn't the Ball selection made at the recommendation of the new scout they hired away from the Angels (Eddie Bane, I think) - the one that recommended the Angels select Trout. I believe you're confusing Ball with Stankiewicz. |
|
|
|
Post by iakovos11 on Jan 27, 2014 10:43:01 GMT -5
Maybe. And, of course I can't find a link. But I thought I read somewhere, maybe here, that it was Bane that had Ball very highly rated.
Not that it would necessarily mean that much. But the board thought at the time of the hiring that it was a coup. He has a pretty good track record.
|
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Jan 27, 2014 11:55:11 GMT -5
Maybe. And, of course I can't find a link. But I thought I read somewhere, maybe here, that it was Bane that had Ball very highly rated. Not that it would necessarily mean that much. But the board thought at the time of the hiring that it was a coup. He has a pretty good track record. Actually, I was just being diplomatic. You were confusing Ball with Stankiewicz. |
|
|
|
Post by iakovos11 on Jan 27, 2014 11:58:09 GMT -5
Ha ha. Fair enough.
|
|
