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 telson13 on Jun 28, 2017 22:31:13 GMT -5
I thought of the same comparison when first reading about Perry. Did Pennington come to the Red Sox while rehabbing from TJ or did that happen after he was drafted? Sounds like Perry got his brace off two weeks ago, should finalize things in Boston by Thursday and head to Fort Myers for a throwing program. Also, does anyone have the updated signing spread sheet? RE: Pennington - it was known he needed TJ, but he didn't get the procedure until after being drafted. So technically option 2 if that's what you meant, rather than getting hurt after he was drafted. Ah, thanks, wasn't sure if he waited for surgery under a drafting team (more reason to sign, since I'm guessing they cover costs) |
|
|
|
Post by bnich on Jun 28, 2017 22:45:08 GMT -5
I thought of the same comparison when first reading about Perry. Did Pennington come to the Red Sox while rehabbing from TJ or did that happen after he was drafted? Sounds like Perry got his brace off two weeks ago, should finalize things in Boston by Thursday and head to Fort Myers for a throwing program. Also, does anyone have the updated signing spread sheet? RE: Pennington - it was known he needed TJ, but he didn't get the procedure until after being drafted. So technically option 2 if that's what you meant, rather than getting hurt after he was drafted. That clears it up thank you. I suppose a bit better, albeit, completely different injury with Perry, but no big surgery necessary. |
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Jun 29, 2017 6:58:58 GMT -5
A couple of questions after listening to the June 21, 2017 Podcast Ep. #123: 2017 Draft Review with Jim Callis of MLB.com. 1. Looking at the scouting reports and stats on Tanner Houck and Jake Thompson I'm wondering why Tanner ranks ahead of Thompson? The stuff looks comparable. Tanner has a bigger frame but Thompson is not undersized. What jumps out at me are the NCAA stats. At a better program Thompson had far superior stats. In fact Tanner's stats are unimpressive. Is it the back injury? 2. Why did Alex Scherff fall so far? Was it just the fact that he changed schools 3-4 times during high school? 1. Above-average versus below-average control is probably the biggest thing. Stuff is similar though. Thompson is also more than a year and a half older than Houck. Finally, I'd dispute your point on performance. Houck performed well all three seasons in the country's top conference, while Thompson didn't do much until his redshirt junior season. Thompson had the superior single year between the two, sure, but Houck was a much more consistent performer over his career, although his college career ended with a bit of a down season in which he didn't have his velocity early in the year. 2. Part of it was makeup concerns stemming in part from the school transfers yes. I've heard concerns that relate at least in part to all the transferring. He's also an old high schooler for whatever it's worth, and there are some questions about delivery and feel to spin a breaking ball. Not trying to crap on him or anything - he's a great get in the 5th, especially at that price - but just saying why he'd have fallen. |
|
|
|
Post by patford on Jun 29, 2017 8:05:18 GMT -5
1. Above-average versus below-average control is probably the biggest thing. Stuff is similar though. Thompson is also more than a year and a half older than Houck. Finally, I'd dispute your point on performance. Houck performed well all three seasons in the country's top conference, while Thompson didn't do much until his redshirt junior season. Thompson had the superior single year between the two, sure, but Houck was a much more consistent performer over his career, although his college career ended with a bit of a down season in which he didn't have his velocity early in the year. 2. Part of it was makeup concerns stemming in part from the school transfers yes. I've heard concerns that relate at least in part to all the transferring. He's also an old high schooler for whatever it's worth, and there are some questions about delivery and feel to spin a breaking ball. Not trying to crap on him or anything - he's a great get in the 5th, especially at that price - but just saying why he'd have fallen. On Thompson and Tanner I noticed the in the scouting report Tanner was said to have "plus command" of his fastball. Somehow that does not seem to translate to his era over three years: 3.49, 2.99, 3.33. His whip numbers are much better. Maybe Missouri was not a good defensive team? With Scherff we're back in the "Makeup Zone" we saw with Groome. I respect not publicly spreading rumors or even known facts about the behavior of a high school kid. It's hard to even talk about because if a person speculates that the transfers were baseball related having to do with a hands on parent and someone with more information says, "No it was more than that" then it will cause fans to jump to conclusions. I did read an article which gave me the impression Scherff is serious minded and dedicated. He lost 42 pounds and got himself into excellent physical condition. Gained considerable velocity on his fastball (he might be a good influence on Groome?) and has been working with Shane Reynolds and Roger Clemens. www.baseballamerica.com/draft/alex-scherff-establishes-elite-2017-arm/#2chc0JtEJbs1wVXO.97 |
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Jun 29, 2017 8:54:46 GMT -5
1. Above-average versus below-average control is probably the biggest thing. Stuff is similar though. Thompson is also more than a year and a half older than Houck. Finally, I'd dispute your point on performance. Houck performed well all three seasons in the country's top conference, while Thompson didn't do much until his redshirt junior season. Thompson had the superior single year between the two, sure, but Houck was a much more consistent performer over his career, although his college career ended with a bit of a down season in which he didn't have his velocity early in the year. 2. Part of it was makeup concerns stemming in part from the school transfers yes. I've heard concerns that relate at least in part to all the transferring. He's also an old high schooler for whatever it's worth, and there are some questions about delivery and feel to spin a breaking ball. Not trying to crap on him or anything - he's a great get in the 5th, especially at that price - but just saying why he'd have fallen. On Thompson and Tanner I noticed the in the scouting report Tanner was said to have "plus command" of his fastball. Somehow that does not seem to translate to his era over three years: 3.49, 2.99, 3.33. His whip numbers are much better. Maybe Missouri was not a good defensive team? With Scherff we're back in the "Makeup Zone" we saw with Groome. I respect not publicly spreading rumors or even known facts about the behavior of a high school kid. It's hard to even talk about because if a person speculates that the transfers were baseball related having to do with a hands on parent and someone with more information says, "No it was more than that" then it will cause fans to jump to conclusions. I did read an article which gave me the impression Scherff is serious minded and dedicated. He lost 42 pounds and got himself into excellent physical condition. Gained considerable velocity on his fastball (he might be a good influence on Groome?) and has been working with Shane Reynolds and Roger Clemens. www.baseballamerica.com/draft/alex-scherff-establishes-elite-2017-arm/#2chc0JtEJbs1wVXO.97On Houck, ERA is a pretty terrible metric for judging... anything really. At least on a prospective basis. On command, you're much better off looking at things like K/BB ratio, which he was great on for all three years of college. Scherff's makeup questions are nowhere near Groome's for what it's worth. At least the things I've heard. In fact, at least one person I've talked to said Scherff's issues seemed like the type that might not be a problem now that he's signed and over in Florida. The fact we're even discussing them this much is probably making them out to be more than they are. |
|
|
|
Post by ramireja on Jun 29, 2017 10:50:58 GMT -5
Take it with a grain salt, as it was a pretty casual mention in 108 stitches, but Speier mentioned that Aaron Perry had been seen sitting at 94 and touching 97 at some point before his injury. Thats higher than I had ever seen for him. He sounds like a pretty exciting arm for a sub 6 foot pitcher.
|
|
|
|
Post by ryan24 on Jun 29, 2017 13:13:25 GMT -5
has Thompson signed yet?
|
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Jun 29, 2017 13:19:44 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jun 29, 2017 13:59:42 GMT -5
I'm actually skeptical that they'll be able to sign Thompson with the money that is left. But that's just a total guess.
|
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Jun 29, 2017 14:04:53 GMT -5
The plus here is that it's pretty much take it or leave it. Holding out changes nothing.
|
|
|
|
Post by juanpena on Jun 29, 2017 14:43:21 GMT -5
The plus here is that it's pretty much take it or leave it. Holding out changes nothing. I wonder if the Sox are confident he will "take it" because of his age. Maybe they figure he won't want to risk going back in the draft when he's almost 24 and will have zero leverage. |
|
|
|
Post by ryan24 on Jun 29, 2017 15:05:45 GMT -5
Based on your comment Dude, I guess not. And do not ask again. We will let you know. Thanks for the info. |
|
|
|
Post by ryan24 on Jun 29, 2017 16:09:08 GMT -5
If Thompson does not sign are we still in good shape as far the draft pool of money goes? Meaning no penalties.
|
|
|
|
Post by soxfanatic on Jun 29, 2017 16:26:54 GMT -5
If Thompson does not sign are we still in good shape as far the draft pool of money goes? Meaning no penalties. It seems like that, yes. |
|
|
|
Post by iakovos11 on Jun 29, 2017 16:27:52 GMT -5
If you are not seeing news of signing here, it's safe to say he hasn't signed.
|
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Jun 29, 2017 16:31:10 GMT -5
If Thompson does not sign are we still in good shape as far the draft pool of money goes? Meaning no penalties. They have more money left under the Cap+5% than the size of Thompson's bonus, so yes. Put another way, the bonuses signed are only 4.9% under the cap for those picks, so they won't incur any penalties other than the tax on the overage if they lose Thompson's slot. (In fact, doing the math and seeing how precisely Netzer's bonus got them under the 5% figure, I'm wondering if they may be a bit unsure about Thompson and were covering themselves in case he decided not to sign. And for what it's worth, the issue was less that the question - easy as it may have been to simply google, to check the Draft History page on this website, or to just trust that such news would be posted in this thread, fwiw - was asked, but more that it had been asked multiple times in a 24-hour span. I don't want anyone to think that they can't ask questions here because they're too dumb or anything, but just trust that if there's a response to be made, it'll be made. |
|
|
|
Post by widewordofsport on Jun 29, 2017 17:38:01 GMT -5
I went through and didn't see a quick answer.
Per my math, if Thompson does NOT sign, anything over $128K for Perry, and the Red Sox lose picks, correct?
|
|
|
|
Post by ancientsoxfogey on Jun 29, 2017 20:23:34 GMT -5
Has Thompson signed yet???!!!
But seriously, since people figure he'll probably sign for close to the max available money if he does sign, Perry probably has to sign for little if any more than the $125K base whether or not Thompson signs.
|
|
|
|
Post by ryan24 on Jun 30, 2017 5:48:54 GMT -5
If Thompson does not sign are we still in good shape as far the draft pool of money goes? Meaning no penalties. They have more money left under the Cap+5% than the size of Thompson's bonus, so yes. Put another way, the bonuses signed are only 4.9% under the cap for those picks, so they won't incur any penalties other than the tax on the overage if they lose Thompson's slot. (In fact, doing the math and seeing how precisely Netzer's bonus got them under the 5% figure, I'm wondering if they may be a bit unsure about Thompson and were covering themselves in case he decided not to sign. And for what it's worth, the issue was less that the question - easy as it may have been to simply google, to check the Draft History page on this website, or to just trust that such news would be posted in this thread, fwiw - was asked, but more that it had been asked multiple times in a 24-hour span. I don't want anyone to think that they can't ask questions here because they're too dumb or anything, but just trust that if there's a response to be made, it'll be made. Thanks for the info. I will not bother you again, I will move on. |
|
|
|
Post by borisman on Jun 30, 2017 9:05:20 GMT -5
If Thompson doesnt' sign (which is highly unlikely), what happens to all the top 10 picks that have already signed and started playing? Do we call Luca Brasi? Ahh, now we now will definitely sign but not sure why it's dragging out longer than it should be.
|
|
|
|
Post by texs31 on Jun 30, 2017 9:36:35 GMT -5
IF I'm doing this correctly, it comes down to having $421K to split between Thompson and the excess (of 125K) for Perry. If no Thompson, Perry gets $128K max.
No impact to signees.
|
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Jun 30, 2017 15:07:31 GMT -5
If Thompson doesnt' sign (which is highly unlikely), what happens to all the top 10 picks that have already signed and started playing? Do we call Luca Brasi? Ahh, now we now will definitely sign but not sure why it's dragging out longer than it should be. Like I said above, they're not going to incur any penalties if Thompson doesn't sign. Even if they were, the penalties involve the loss of future picks, so there wouldn't be any effect on the guys who've already signed. |
|
|
|
Post by The Duck on Jun 30, 2017 16:28:08 GMT -5
Confused. We have half of page 10 of this thread saying Perry already signed. If that is true, and it was overslot by more than a few thousand, then Thompson would need to sign to avoid losing the future pick.
|
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jun 30, 2017 16:33:44 GMT -5
Confused. We have half of page 10 of this thread saying Perry already signed. If that is true, and it was overslot by more than a few thousand, then Thompson would need to sign to avoid losing the future pick. That would cause a meltdown. There's just no way that they made a mistake like that. |
|
|
|
Post by soxfanatic on Jun 30, 2017 17:09:20 GMT -5
@tylerdearden: After much thought, I have decided to sign with the Boston Red Sox. Excited to be a part of such a great organization.
|
|
|
