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.
Post-Draft Discussion Thread
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jun 13, 2016 8:44:13 GMT -5
I wanted Nolan Jones at 51, but if we drafted either, maybe we had to go with more senior signs between rounds 3-10 and then end up not signing anyone over $100k after round 10. Jones is a guy that I can't wait to see what he signs for. I really wanted him, but can understand if it would have taken a large amount over slot to sign him. |
|
|
|
Post by kingofthetrill on Jun 13, 2016 8:45:21 GMT -5
To be honest, I didn't like the Chatham pick either, but that being said, I also recognize that there's plenty more to the Chatham pick then Boston thinking he's the best available. There's a lot more beneath the surface regarding signing bonuses and balancing other picks/demands that may never be known to the public.
In fact, since I've been religiously watching the MLB Draft (since about 2008) there have only been 3 draft picks prior to Groome that I was excited about when they were drafted. David Renfroe, Anthony Ranaudo, and Karsten Whitson. I was underwhelmed by Casey Kelly, Reymond Fuentes, Matt Barnes, Henry Owens, JBJ etc. I also really liked Madison Younginer and Renny Parthemore. My point is that I trust the FO a lot more than my own personal opinion, which is why I try to keep these sort of opinions to myself.
|
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jun 13, 2016 9:04:59 GMT -5
It's so easy to criticize based on reading a few scouting reports and just knowing exactly the kind of player he'll turn out to be after developing. Or maybe it's just insane to not recognize that you have pretty much zero knowledge on it like the rest of us who never watched him play and can't predict the future. This is a 2nd round pick we're talking about here, in a draft which requires so many moving parts regarding the signing bonuses. You really can't give the team the benefit of the doubt here on a 2nd round pick? They probably have more information than you have. Nope I don't give blind loyalty to any GM's not named Bill and Danny, they have earned it. All the knowledge we have at this point is player rankings and scouting reports. So why is it wrong to question a pick when those don't sound very good? Looking at Baseball America, Keith Law and MLB.com I think it's very fair to question that pick. MLB.com who has Chatham rated the highest, still raises questions about his bat. Law who seems to be the lowest on him says he can't stick at SS and is future utility guy. I'm on record saying I hope I'm wrong, i'm not rooting against the guy, just questioning the pick. Now if he some how signs for well below slot I will change my mind, just don't see that happening. So why is wrong for me to question the Chatham pick with the information I have, while everyone on here uses same information to love the Groome pick? A player generally seen as #1 player in Draft that 11 teams passed on. So shocking to see you doubling and tripling down on stubbornness. You won't give blind loyalty to GMs, but you will give it to scouting reports and your knowledge of the future. |
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jun 13, 2016 9:05:53 GMT -5
I wanted Nolan Jones at 51, but if we drafted either, maybe we had to go with more senior signs between rounds 3-10 and then end up not signing anyone over $100k after round 10. Jones is a guy that I can't wait to see what he signs for. I really wanted him, but can understand if it would have taken a large amount over slot to sign him. Even if you see what he ends up signing for, it doesn't mean that's what he was asking for from the Red Sox at the time they asked him. |
|
alnipper
Veteran
Living the dream
Posts: 639
|
Post by alnipper on Jun 13, 2016 9:25:48 GMT -5
The Sox drafted Chapman as a late 2nd round talent who agreed to sign for the money. To me he is a solid pick.
|
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jun 13, 2016 9:52:22 GMT -5
I also think there is some general overvaluing of ceiling and undervaluing of floor with draft picks, especially of non-first-round picks. A median projection of a utility infielder/second-division starter isn't sexy, but, looking at historical production, that's honestly a pretty decent outcome for your second round pick (the average pre-FA WAR you get from a pick in that range is about two), and Chatham should move quickly through the system.
|
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jun 13, 2016 9:58:20 GMT -5
Nope I don't give blind loyalty to any GM's not named Bill and Danny, they have earned it. All the knowledge we have at this point is player rankings and scouting reports. So why is it wrong to question a pick when those don't sound very good? Looking at Baseball America, Keith Law and MLB.com I think it's very fair to question that pick. MLB.com who has Chatham rated the highest, still raises questions about his bat. Law who seems to be the lowest on him says he can't stick at SS and is future utility guy. I'm on record saying I hope I'm wrong, i'm not rooting against the guy, just questioning the pick. Now if he some how signs for well below slot I will change my mind, just don't see that happening. So why is wrong for me to question the Chatham pick with the information I have, while everyone on here uses same information to love the Groome pick? A player generally seen as #1 player in Draft that 11 teams passed on. So shocking to see you doubling and tripling down on stubbornness. You won't give blind loyalty to GMs, but you will give it to scouting reports and your knowledge of the future. I'm not doubling and tripling down. It's my opinion and you are not going to get me to change it, well unless you bring meaningful facts to the debate, which you never do. Just more insults like always. Hey would you like to meet in person ? Would love to have that chance, bet your big mouth wouldn't be that big then. Let me know when and where, I will meet you anywhere in Massachusetts. I'll even buy you lunch! |
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jun 13, 2016 10:03:32 GMT -5
Jones is a guy that I can't wait to see what he signs for. I really wanted him, but can understand if it would have taken a large amount over slot to sign him. Even if you see what he ends up signing for, it doesn't mean that's what he was asking for from the Red Sox at the time they asked him. They knew general terms. All prospects start out asking for most they can get and most sign for less. That's a well known fact. Thanks for your wealth of knowledge like always. |
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jun 13, 2016 10:15:36 GMT -5
Hey would you like to meet in person ? Would love to have that chance, bet your big mouth wouldn't be that big then. Let me know when and where, I will meet you anywhere in Massachusetts. I'll even buy you lunch! Implicitly challenging another poster to a fight is grossly inappropriate, and we have just about zero tolerance for this kind of nonsense. Consider this your one and only warning: cut it out immediately. |
|
|
|
Post by eagleeye9184 on Jun 13, 2016 11:49:30 GMT -5
Arguing over the merits of the second round pick (we should have taken my binkie, player X, instead) misses the point of this draft, imo. None of these picks are made in a vacuum. They are in the context of the totality of the draft class. This year's draft is GROOME, and everyone else. As long as the BoSox sign GROOME, the rest of the picks make sense and are justified. I also trust that they will sign GROOME. If we hit on an additional power arm or a live bat with any of the lottery tickets from round 2 on, then all the better. Just as long as GROOME signs. Having said that, I look forward to seeing the other lottery tickets from round 2 on as they sign. And GROOME.
|
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jun 13, 2016 11:51:23 GMT -5
Haha, imagine if I was trying to troll. Haven't been challenged to an internet fight in 15 years.
|
|
|
|
Post by eagleeye9184 on Jun 13, 2016 11:54:58 GMT -5
Haha, imagine if I was trying to troll. Haven't been challenged to an internet fight in 15 years. Does that mean you're doing the internet wrong? |
|
|
|
Post by FenwayFanatic on Jun 13, 2016 12:10:14 GMT -5
I was initally not very wild about the Chatham pick either but others have convinced me of the error of my ways. Its about money. Some of the players picked after him were even more highly rated and might sign, plus, if he can even become a good bench player thats pretty good considering the signing bonus he is going to get. This draft is about Groome and everything else is gravy. Very different from having a high second pick like Kopech.
|
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Jun 13, 2016 12:20:07 GMT -5
I was initally not very wild about the Chatham pick either but others have convinced me of the error of my ways. Its about money. Some of the players picked after him were even more highly rated and might sign, plus, if he can even become a good bench player thats pretty good considering the signing bonus he is going to get. This draft is about Groome and everything else is gravy. Very different from having a high second pick like Kopech. Kopech was also a first-round pick and went 20 spots earlier. Gotta look at context. |
|
|
|
Post by FenwayFanatic on Jun 13, 2016 12:50:23 GMT -5
Right, thats part of what I'm trying to say, I think some people may be used to having a high second pick from past drafts which is why they may be bearish on the Chatham pick. Then you add in the money component and it makes a lot of sense.
|
|
|
|
Post by thebogeyman on Jun 13, 2016 13:39:44 GMT -5
I was initally not very wild about the Chatham pick either but others have convinced me of the error of my ways. Its about money. Some of the players picked after him were even more highly rated and might sign, plus, if he can even become a good bench player thats pretty good considering the signing bonus he is going to get. Do we have figures for what he wants yet? People keep assuming he will sign below slot, but I haven't seen anything concrete (if I missed it I apologize). Given the bust rate of draftees/prospects (even top draftees), I certainly hope not. Putting all our eggs in the Groome basket would be a risky strategy no matter how good he seems. |
|
|
|
Post by eagleeye9184 on Jun 13, 2016 13:59:51 GMT -5
"All the eggs" are not in the Groome basket. However, he is the one pick in this year's draft who merits being in our Top 5 of prospect rankings, and that is in a system with a very strong top end. Groome matters most, and it is critical to sign him for this class to be deemed successful. (Obviously, we'll need 3-5 years to properly evaluate what the return is on this class.)
Regarding "risky strategy", this is a crap shoot as it is. All these picks are lottery tickets. However, there are ways to minimize risk by picking "safer players". In this vehicle for player procurement, I applaud the BoSox for going all in on what was a potential 1-1 pick. I don't want them to take the safe high floor player when this "generational arm" is on the board. The upside for GROOME is so high, that the return on the $4 million bonus could be astounding. Go big or go home. This is a good bet, in my eyes.
|
|
|
|
Post by brianthetaoist on Jun 13, 2016 15:00:23 GMT -5
In fact, since I've been religiously watching the MLB Draft (since about 2008) there have only been 3 draft picks prior to Groome that I was excited about when they were drafted. David Renfroe, Anthony Ranaudo, and Karsten Whitson. I was underwhelmed by Casey Kelly, Reymond Fuentes, Matt Barnes, Henry Owens, JBJ etc. I also really liked Madison Younginer and Renny Parthemore. My point is that I trust the FO a lot more than my own personal opinion, which is why I try to keep these sort of opinions to myself. Heh ... that's a pretty good exercise. I usually don't comment too much on the picks at the time, but I can remember being excited about Pedroia, Hansen, Ranaudo, Bowden (he was filling potholes in his mom's driveway!), Ellsbury, Brian Johnson, Kelly, Hagadone, and Barnes/Swihart/JBJ. So, a mixed bag, for sure, basically random on whether I was right or not. And those were all top picks. I always think of two guys when I think of how little I know: Derrik Gibson and Mookie Betts. They were both exciting to me when they were picked, and if they were in the same year i would think they were basically interchangeable. But one is a budding superstar, and one is not. |
|
|
|
Post by ramireja on Jun 13, 2016 15:16:18 GMT -5
Some overall draft thoughts:
- The Sox continue to emphasize up the middle players with a large percentage of position players listed as SS, OF (many with CF experience) and C. Now of course, a number of these guys will have to move around the diamond to find playing time, and some guys already aren't projected to handle SS, but its interesting to see this pattern persist year after year.
- All three catchers selected have strong defensive reputations highlighting the importance of catcher defense in the system's philosophy.
- When analyzing the HS picks in rounds 11-40, I'd have to think the Sox find it likely that they will sign Nick Quintana, Michael Wilson, and Alberto Schmidt (they've signed >90% of their 11-20 round picks in the last 3 years). They probably have a decent chance of signing one or both of Beau Cappanna and Juan Carlos Abreu, and then little chance of signing any of Cam Shepherd, Tyler Fitzgerald, Christian Jones, Jeff Belge, and Austin Bergner.
- The run of Shepherd, Fitzgerald, Jones, and Belge was a particularly aggressive and interesting four-round run of highly touted HS players. I'd have to think that run is a sign of a contingency plan for not signing Groome and having a little extra to hopefully sway one of those guys from their college commitments. If Groome signs, as we all hope, I think we can say goodbye to all of those guys and prepare to bitch about them as 1st and 2nd round prospects in 3 years.
- Overall, I thought this was a very strong draft but I'll need to update my thinking once we see who signs, and for how much. Obviously, Groome makes this draft incredibly exciting and I'm also particularly high on the picks of Shawaryn and Quintana. I don't hate the picks of Chatham and Anderson and think we need to see how much they sign for. Dalbec is a very low probability lottery ticket with upside, but I think its important to draft 1-2 of those tickets every year.....at Round 4 I'm cool with it, plus it doesn't hurt that he could probably get a shot as a bullpen arm down the road. Nogosek and Gorst also seems like nice RP options that could potentially move quickly, and although the upside isn't too sexy, they could have value and round out the portfolio nicely (think of the Joe Gunkel, Kyle Martin, and Chandler Shepherds of the world).
|
|
|
|
Post by The Duck on Jun 13, 2016 15:21:41 GMT -5
Speaking of Mookie, we should take a moment after 5 years to think kindly of Senquez Golson, who by passing on the Sox, allowed Mookie to be signed.
|
|
|
|
Post by FenwayFanatic on Jun 13, 2016 15:26:44 GMT -5
"All the eggs" are not in the Groome basket. However, he is the one pick in this year's draft who merits being in our Top 5 of prospect rankings, and that is in a system with a very strong top end. Groome matters most, and it is critical to sign him for this class to be deemed successful. (Obviously, we'll need 3-5 years to properly evaluate what the return is on this class.) Regarding "risky strategy", this is a crap shoot as it is. All these picks are lottery tickets. However, there are ways to minimize risk by picking "safer players". In this vehicle for player procurement, I applaud the BoSox for going all in on what was a potential 1-1 pick. I don't want them to take the safe high floor player when this "generational arm" is on the board. The upside for GROOME is so high, that the return on the $4 million bonus could be astounding. Go big or go home. This is a good bet, in my eyes. All the eggs are not in the basket necessarily but those later round guys are often called lottery tickets for a reason. |
|
|
|
Post by brendan98 on Jun 13, 2016 15:47:38 GMT -5
When you have a cap of $7,347,270 for your entire draft class, and you draft a player who arguably should have been drafted 1/1 (a spot whose recommended slot is $9,015,000) with your 1st round pick, obviously you are going to have some issues. I applaud the Red Sox for “going for it”, Groome would have made more sense for a team with a larger bonus pool, but the Red Sox recognized that this was an elite talent, and made a bold move in drafting him knowing that in doing so, they would need to alter their draft strategy on the fly (though I’m sure they had given the possibility some prior consideration), and that they would be in for some tough negotiations, not only to sign Groome, but also to sign some of the 2-9 round picks to underslot deals, and hit on some potential late round picks to make this draft more than a 1 chance roll of the dice. The Red Sox easily could have made a safer pick, drafted a Deven Marrero type instead of Groome, and maybe drafted a couple of more highly rated prospects in rounds 2-9, and when questioned on passing over Groome, just brushed it off claiming that his bonus demands would have left them no room to sign anyone else in the draft (such an explanation would have been hard to contest and would have saved the Sox a lot of tough negotiation), but the Sox “went for it”, and I for one am thrilled they did so. I’m not sure if anyone else did the same, but when the Sox pick was set to be announced I was sitting on my couch saying to myself “please be Groome, please be Groome, please be Groome” while in the back of my mind I was expected to be disappointed with this year’s version of Deven Marrero. Here’s hoping they get a deal done with Groome. Also, my apologies to Marrero and his fans, nothing personal, I still think he can be a useful ballplayer, just that Groome can be so much more than useful.
|
|
jimoh
Veteran
Posts: 4,198 
|
Post by jimoh on Jun 13, 2016 15:53:39 GMT -5
Can I ask a technical question? If we don't sign Groome, I know we lose that slot $, but what about the 5% overage? Do we also lose that for the first-round slot? Would we be able to spend 5% over $7M or 5% over only the remaining $3.8M?
|
|
|
|
Post by FenwayFanatic on Jun 13, 2016 15:53:59 GMT -5
I was actually sitting on my couch thinking "please don't be Thaiss, please don't be Thaiss" but I was ecstatic about the Groome pick!
|
|
|
|
Post by RedSoxStats on Jun 13, 2016 16:23:36 GMT -5
Speaking of Mookie, we should take a moment after 5 years to think kindly of Senquez Golson, who by passing on the Sox, allowed Mookie to be signed. Callis on a SP podcast this was not correct and Betts was getting singed, I forget who he said would have been out. |
|
|
