|
|
Post by jdb on Apr 9, 2015 18:37:11 GMT -5
Some draft related notes in Laws chat. He says Aiken could fall to the back half or out of the first, Matula is in the 8-15 range, he thinks Ian Happ is top ten as a 2B, scouting Daz Cameron tonight and he's being considered at 1-1 and his top 50 is out tomorrow. espn.go.com/sportsnation/chat/_/id/51714/mlb-insider-keith-law |
|
|
|
Post by mannofsteele on Apr 10, 2015 8:07:36 GMT -5
Nick (Cincinnati)
The interesting one. If his medical is more complicated that would make it hard to look at him as high as 7. However, the Red Sox are in an interesting case, because presently he could come in and rehab properly and take his time while entering a very solid position within the next few years. I guess we'll see in mid June, but I'm completely in favor of Aiken 1/1 for pick 7. Unless Tate is sitting there for the taking, which seems unlikely.
|
|
|
|
Post by FenwayFanatic on Apr 10, 2015 8:42:29 GMT -5
Any indication they would consider punting the pick?
|
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Apr 10, 2015 8:45:36 GMT -5
I don't think any team has ever punted the pick (i.e. not made a good faith effort to sign their draftee). I don't think the Comissioner would be pleased about that.
|
|
|
|
Post by pedroelgrande on Apr 10, 2015 11:23:58 GMT -5
As the guy that floated the idea with a one-liner let me expand a bit on the thought.
After further review its not as a straight foward as my one liner would suggest. As has been noted they can't just draft someone and not even try to sign them. It could hinder other negotiations if the team is viewed as negotiating in bad faith and it's not something that the front office probably wants to deal with.
The thing I could see them "punting" the pick it's if a guy really wants to go to school or has a crazy demand that holds firm all the way through and they don't over extend themselves to try to sign him.
It's a highly doubtful scenario right now. I don't think it's something teams really plan for or desire. It's something that they tolerate when it happens if it makes sense.
Right now the most likely scenario is that they play the board however it falls. As Chris noted there is not much separation between a lot of guys at the top so the possibilities are endless.
|
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Apr 10, 2015 12:40:29 GMT -5
Keith Law just posted his Draft Top 50. The opening line is edifying: This year's draft class is very weak at the top -- the worst in that regard since at least 2000 -- with very little safe college starting pitching and a complete dearth of catchers.Also this: A draft without a no-doubt ace prospect in college or high school.insider.espn.go.com/blog/keith-law/insider/post?id=3843 For those Law lovers/haters this is all the fuel you love and more. |
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Apr 10, 2015 12:46:23 GMT -5
I don't think any team has ever punted the pick (i.e. not made a good faith effort to sign their draftee). I don't think the Comissioner would be pleased about that. They could always say their read of the medicals ultimately made signing the the selection for slot problematic. After all, the team has a history of some questionable reads of medical info (Jason Bay's knees immediately come to mind. It turned out to be everything but his knees. Of course there have been others). Anyway, as long as it looks like good faith, it's good faith, at least in front of the tribunal. |
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Apr 10, 2015 12:59:17 GMT -5
As the guy that floated the idea with a one-liner let me expand a bit on the thought. After further review its not as a straight foward as my one liner would suggest. As has been noted they can't just draft someone and not even try to sign them. It could hinder other negotiations if the team is viewed as negotiating in bad faith and it's not something that the front office probably wants to deal with. The thing I could see them "punting" the pick it's if a guy really wants to go to school or has a crazy demand that holds firm all the way through and they don't over extend themselves to try to sign him. It's a highly doubtful scenario right now. I don't think it's something teams really plan for or desire. It's something that they tolerate when it happens if it makes sense. Right now the most likely scenario is that they play the board however it falls. As Chris noted there is not much separation between a lot of guys at the top so the possibilities are endless. Keep in mind, they'd have to offer 40% of slot to get the comp pick next year, so they would have to draft someone that is worth at least that much in case he took it. If that disastrous event took place, they would have to be in a position to sign some significant overslot guys later. They would lose that money if the #7 pick did not sign it and then it would be difficult to sign any overslot guys. So they better know exactly what they're doing because the entire draft could be a disaster. And the other issue is that if you're drafting a guy that is worth at least 40% of slot, chances are he was going to be a 1st round pick anyway and wants to sign. So he's getting screwed. It would be very clear to everyone what was going on and it would look pretty ugly. I really don't know how they could play dumb and pretend to be disappointed. I guess they could draft a football or basketball player who is going to make a lot more money but it's still going to look ugly and cause a lot of yelling and screaming. I think there's almost a 0% chance of this happening. |
|
|
|
Post by dcsoxfan on Apr 10, 2015 13:14:06 GMT -5
Punting a pick -- preventing someone from being drafted by another team -- would be an utterly reprehensible thing to do. I sincerely hope my favorite team wouldn't entertain such an idea for even a second.
|
|
|
|
Post by kman22 on Apr 10, 2015 13:27:02 GMT -5
Punting a pick -- preventing someone from being drafted by another team -- would be an utterly reprehensible thing to do. I sincerely hope my favorite team wouldn't entertain such an idea for even a second. Reverse that, a kid being drafted and not signing prevented someone else from being drafted by that team and signing. FWIW, when the Red Sox drafted Ryan Boldt in 2013, it was reported that he was going to school unless he was offered upwards of $2M. 50% of the #7 pick is less than $1.8M. If the Red Sox had picked him #7 and offered him 40% of the slot, he was still going to school. |
|
|
|
Post by dcsoxfan on Apr 10, 2015 13:30:56 GMT -5
Punting a pick -- preventing someone from being drafted by another team -- would be an utterly reprehensible thing to do. I sincerely hope my favorite team wouldn't entertain such an idea for even a second. Reverse that, a kid being drafted and not signing prevented someone else from being drafted by that team and signing. FWIW, when the Red Sox drafted Ryan Boldt in 2013, it was reported that he was going to school unless he was offered upwards of $2M. 50% of the #7 pick is less than $1.8M. If the Red Sox had picked him #7 and offered him 40% of the slot, he was still going to school. These two things aren't even remotely the same thing. |
|
|
|
Post by RedSoxStats on Apr 10, 2015 14:06:14 GMT -5
FWIW that Bregman [and earlier Funkhouser] information comes from some strong conference-level media relations relationships, basically information that's made its way up the grape vine. Have not heard much on Kirby.
|
|
|
|
Post by kman22 on Apr 10, 2015 15:17:14 GMT -5
Reverse that, a kid being drafted and not signing prevented someone else from being drafted by that team and signing. FWIW, when the Red Sox drafted Ryan Boldt in 2013, it was reported that he was going to school unless he was offered upwards of $2M. 50% of the #7 pick is less than $1.8M. If the Red Sox had picked him #7 and offered him 40% of the slot, he was still going to school. These two things aren't even remotely the same thing. That's one of the main reasons I made that two paragraphs instead of one. |
|
|
|
Post by dcsoxfan on Apr 10, 2015 16:17:09 GMT -5
These two things aren't even remotely the same thing. That's one of the main reasons I made that two paragraphs instead of one. Forgive me, but I 'm confused by your post. If you're suggesting that a team could "punt" a pick by drafting someone who had no intention of signing, I would sort of agree, although it is still problematic. What if the player changed his mind after the draft? If you're suggesting that a player who doesn't seriously consider signing after being drafted is hurting another player -- as your first paragraph implies -- I don't see that. How can a player be responsible for what the team who drafted him does? The draft is enough of an abridgement of what should be a person's right to choose where he wants to work that any additional gaming the system is unethical and immoral. |
|
|
|
Post by jdb on Apr 10, 2015 20:36:08 GMT -5
Aaron Fitt watched Funkhouser tonight and was impressed he said he touched 97 and had better command than earlier in the season.
Tweet
Funkhouser is done after 7 scoreless, 4-hit innings, struck out 8, walked just 1, hit 1. Really impressive. Dominated overwhelmingly w/ FB.
|
|
|
|
Post by lennsakata on Apr 10, 2015 20:52:43 GMT -5
Has there been any news/reports on Justin Hooper lately/this year? Haven't heard much about him since he was being talked about as a potential top 5-10n pick last fall. Seems likely there will be some HS arms that will gain helium in the coming months and at least give some upside consideration versus the present options. Of course they could just leapfrog the options most of us are not enamored with but....
|
|
|
|
Post by juniorp90 on Apr 10, 2015 21:29:49 GMT -5
Apparently all ignore yesterday's performance Carson Fulmer, previously selected by Boston and safe aspiring 1st roda:
9IP 2H 0R 0ER 0BB 14K
It would be an option?
|
|
|
|
Post by bigpupp on Apr 10, 2015 21:32:02 GMT -5
Doesn't KLaw have the Aiken/Matuella information completely wrong? Aiken seems like a straight forward TJ similar to Hoffman and Matuella has the back issues that make him even more of a dangerous pick.
|
|
|
|
Post by pedroelgrande on Apr 10, 2015 21:58:18 GMT -5
I think Kiley has said the same thing as Keith Law about Aiken's TJ.
|
|
|
|
Post by burythehammer on Apr 11, 2015 4:25:04 GMT -5
Law said on twitter that Matuella's back is "completely fine" in his typical dismissive way.
|
|
|
|
Post by bsout2 on Apr 11, 2015 7:19:43 GMT -5
Doesn't KLaw have the Aiken/Matuella information completely wrong? Aiken seems like a straight forward TJ similar to Hoffman and Matuella has the back issues that make him even more of a dangerous pick. It all depends on whether teams are allowed to view Aiken's medicals. I think that is the issue. From my understanding Aiken and his people would not let any teams view this information leading up to the draft last year. |
|
|
|
Post by vermontsox1 on Apr 11, 2015 11:17:14 GMT -5
FWIW
Kiley McDaniel ?@kileymcd
HS P update: Mike Nikorak hit 98 last outing; top prep P. Beau Burrows hit 98 few wks back. Justin Hooper finally in zone, hit 97 last night
|
|
|
|
Post by ramireja on Apr 11, 2015 11:39:24 GMT -5
This draft is as unpredictable at the top as any draft that I've followed (which admittedly is probably only like the last 6-7 drafts).
|
|
|
|
Post by vermontsox1 on Apr 11, 2015 11:55:19 GMT -5
Jim Callis ?@jimcallismlb 16m16 minutes ago
RT @sapakoff: top S.C. 2015 @mlbdraft prospect Wando OF Kep Brown carted away from win at Stratford w/ apparent Achilles injury
Projected mid-first rounder...might be available (for an overslot deal) later now.
|
|
|
|
Post by pedroelgrande on Apr 11, 2015 12:40:52 GMT -5
FWIW Kiley McDaniel ?@kileymcd HS P update: Mike Nikorak hit 98 last outing; top prep P. Beau Burrows hit 98 few wks back. Justin Hooper finally in zone, hit 97 last night I really like Nikorak. |
|
