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.
2021 MLB Draft
|
Post by dyoungteach on Jun 12, 2021 18:26:30 GMT -5
For argument's sake, let's say the first three picks work out like this: 1. Pittsburgh - Henry Davis 2. Texas - Jack Leiter 3. Detroit - Marcelo Mayer Who do you want at #4? Lawler? Rocker? Someone else? Rocker or house, I'm good on lawler. House screams trout to me, rocker has ace potential, lawler to me has bust written all over him. I could very well be way off but just imo. It’s amazing to read so many opinions and thoughts on varies players from different people. If baseball changed the draft date to drum up discussion and interest in the draft... we’ll mission accomplished. We have been riding the same merry go round for roughly 2.5 months now. And to think. We have another whole month to go. I can only imagine the comments I’ll get by then. ( said laughingly). But have to admit it’s one of more followed threads on this site
|
|
|
Post by philarhody on Jun 12, 2021 18:31:43 GMT -5
Both :-) 1. They chose Nick Yorke in the first round a year ago, recency bias be damned. It being a 5 round draft makes it less appealing to go underslot imo. They went that route last year because they didn't have a second round pick. Right. They also had a 1st round pick.
|
|
|
Post by kman22 on Jun 12, 2021 19:02:53 GMT -5
Rocker or house, I'm good on lawler. House screams trout to me, rocker has ace potential, lawler to me has bust written all over him. I could very well be way off but just imo. It’s amazing to read so many opinions and thoughts on varies players from different people. If baseball changed the draft date to drum up discussion and interest in the draft... we’ll mission accomplished. We have been riding the same merry go round for roughly 2.5 months now. And to think. We have another whole month to go. I can only imagine the comments I’ll get by then. ( said laughingly). But have to admit it’s one of more followed threads on this site Not sure the league's motives, but from my view, the extreme interest has a lot to do with the team being bad last season and everyone sensing (and now knowing) that we'll have a great draft position. Can't imagine the fanbases with late 1st round picks are significantly more amped because they have until July.
|
|
|
Post by kingstephanos on Jun 12, 2021 19:23:13 GMT -5
They went that route last year because they didn't have a second round pick. Right. They also had a 1st round pick. Yes, and to continue this line of reasoning - they do have a 2nd round pick this year. Of which, they did not in 2020. To put it another way, last year the redox had the 5th LOWEST draft pool ($$). Meaning the Red Sox had much less money to draft high impact players relative to their slot selection in each round. This particular predicament makes drafting more difficult (in a vacuum) and can necessitate "unusual" tactics to at least come out even. www.sportingnews.com/us/amp/mlb/news/mlb-draft-pools-2020-most-money/1exqhedc4133k18lq5ox4xjj5rConversely, the Red Sox have the 6th HIGHEST bonus POOL ($$) for the draft in 2021. Which in the majority of cases (for high payroll teams - no Pirates, or Rays, or Brewers etc.) leads to the team taking the best player available on their boards, relative to their draft slotting and positional preference. Outside of the COVID-19 shortened 2020 draft, one would be hard pressed to single out numerous instances of a high-payroll team going under-slot in the top ten picks - let alone in the 1st round of the MLB draft.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Jun 12, 2021 20:42:25 GMT -5
Yeah I can't see them going under slot at 4 (i.e., taking a guy other than the top 6 or 7 that seems established at this point).
The strategy makes sense when you think the underslot player is close to the player you might have ranked a shade higher, which I believe was probably the case last year with Yorke at pick 17 (which might as well be another universe from pick 4, keep in mind). I'm not inclined to think that they think a player outside the top 6 or 7 guys is close enough to make the underslot thing worth it.
Now, if they learn that, say, Watson is willing to take like $2m less than the guys they have 4-5-6 and they think he's close? OK maybe. But I also don't know why he'd do that. The difference between pick 4 and pick 7 is roughly $1.2M. Maybe he'd take way underslot to sign at 2 with Texas where the slot is more than $1M higher, but I don't see him giving the Sox a 7-figure discount, and once we're talking Jobe with the HS RH risk and the other guys with the talent dropoff, I'd rather them take one of the remaining guys in the Mayer-Leiter-Davis-Lawlar-Rocker-House-Watson group, preferably one of the first four I listed.
|
|
|
Post by congusgambler33 on Jun 12, 2021 21:33:22 GMT -5
Both :-) 1. They chose Nick Yorke in the first round a year ago, recency bias be damned. It being a 5 round draft makes it less appealing to go underslot imo. They went that route last year because they didn't have a second round pick. that is true except that some can't be convinced of that fact.
|
|
|
Post by dyoungteach on Jun 12, 2021 23:59:46 GMT -5
Yeah I can't see them going under slot at 4 (i.e., taking a guy other than the top 6 or 7 that seems established at this point). The strategy makes sense when you think the underslot player is close to the player you might have ranked a shade higher, which I believe was probably the case last year with Yorke at pick 17 (which might as well be another universe from pick 4, keep in mind). I'm not inclined to think that they think a player outside the top 6 or 7 guys is close enough to make the underslot thing worth it. Now, if they learn that, say, Watson is willing to take like $2m less than the guys they have 4-5-6 and they think he's close? OK maybe. But I also don't know why he'd do that. The difference between pick 4 and pick 7 is roughly $1.2M. Maybe he'd take way underslot to sign at 2 with Texas where the slot is more than $1M higher, but I don't see him giving the Sox a 7-figure discount, and once we're talking Jobe with the HS RH risk and the other guys with the talent dropoff, I'd rather them take one of the remaining guys in the Mayer-Leiter-Davis-Lawlar-Rocker-House-Watson group, preferably one of the first four I listed. Don’t you think they might be willing to go $400-$500k under slot for right player though? Or even $300k? I’m pulling a random number here saying slightly under slot for player if they are hung up on 2-3 guys? Again I’m not saying they will just if player a is wanting 200 over vs player b willing to accept 300 under..... But I don’t consider that an under slot player. Just that I won’t be surprised if said player doesn’t get full slot value. I also believe the name BOSTON RED SOX will play up here. I think with no evidence that players will hope to be picked by Red Sox over say the orioles or tigers even or royals. Etc. Again this isn’t fact based just a more curious observation that could happen. I believe every year there are players who kinda “push” their way to a certain team they like over others. And one would like to believe it has more than just $$$$ figures on why. Example: bo bichette turned down 3 offers of first round money to get picked by blue jays who “only” offered $1.1 million. At the time there was talk mid first round teams were interested in him. Wil Myers is another “bonus baby” who did the same thing. When he was in Midwest league he openly told us at the hotel he was staying at ( for all star game) that he turned down 8 offers from other teams in mid to late first round for Kansas City. ( now he got a large bonus from them too). I truly believe this could happen if a player wants to play for Red Sox over another team. Negotiations haven’t even started yet or not openly started that media is reporting. Again NO facts just it’s been done before it could be a possibility here adding to the “ who knows what will happen” with those first four picks jargon ( and beyond there even)
|
|
|
Post by philarhody on Jun 13, 2021 5:12:06 GMT -5
Right. They also had a 1st round pick. Yes, and to continue this line of reasoning - they do have a 2nd round pick this year. Of which, they did not in 2020. To put it another way, last year the redox had the 5th LOWEST draft pool ($$). Meaning the Red Sox had much less money to draft high impact players relative to their slot selection in each round. This particular predicament makes drafting more difficult (in a vacuum) and can necessitate "unusual" tactics to at least come out even. www.sportingnews.com/us/amp/mlb/news/mlb-draft-pools-2020-most-money/1exqhedc4133k18lq5ox4xjj5rConversely, the Red Sox have the 6th HIGHEST bonus POOL ($$) for the draft in 2021. Which in the majority of cases (for high payroll teams - no Pirates, or Rays, or Brewers etc.) leads to the team taking the best player available on their boards, relative to their draft slotting and positional preference. Outside of the COVID-19 shortened 2020 draft, one would be hard pressed to single out numerous instances of a high-payroll team going under-slot in the top ten picks - let alone in the 1st round of the MLB draft. MLB assigns teams a bonus pool reflective of the picks in which they are drafting. Therefore the Red Sox had the 5th lowest pool last year because they were missing their 2nd round pick. They (Boston) had every ability to select a slot signing at 1, at 3, at 4 and 5. Instead, they (Boston) chose to draft significantly underslot at 1 and overslot at 3. This probably belies a more general organizational strategy or their board played out in a manner in which they viewed the difference between best player available in round one was not all that significant from bpa in round 3. Or, they just really loved Nick Yorke more than anyone else on their board at the time. For me, I think it’s more likely that this was general strategy. It’s why I said I suspect they go underslot. My guess is likely as good as anyone else’s.
|
|
|
Post by jdb on Jun 13, 2021 10:22:18 GMT -5
Watched some of the NC State vs Arky game and kind of like the NC State SS Torres. MLB pipeline has him at #72. Maybe we go slightly under slot at 40 and spend at 4.
|
|
|
Post by vermontsox1 on Jun 13, 2021 10:48:01 GMT -5
Appears the Red Sox had about 15 draft prospects at JetBlue yesterday for a workout including:
Ty Evans, OF, Lakeland Christian HS (#159 on BA's list) Jose Pena, RHP, Tampa Prep (#161 on BA's list) Jake Fox, SS, Lakeland Christian HS (#315 on BA's list) Juan Aracena, C, South Dade Senior HS
|
|
|
Post by greatscottcooper on Jun 13, 2021 10:54:35 GMT -5
Appears the Red Sox had about 15 draft prospects at JetBlue yesterday for a workout including: Ty Evans, OF, Lakeland Christian HS (#159 on BA's list) Jose Pena, RHP, Tampa Prep (#161 on BA's list) Jake Fox, SS, Lakeland Christian HS (#315 on BA's list) Juan Aracena, C, South Dade Senior HS Where did you see this?
|
|
|
Post by vermontsox1 on Jun 13, 2021 11:00:17 GMT -5
Appears the Red Sox had about 15 draft prospects at JetBlue yesterday for a workout including: Ty Evans, OF, Lakeland Christian HS (#159 on BA's list) Jose Pena, RHP, Tampa Prep (#161 on BA's list) Jake Fox, SS, Lakeland Christian HS (#315 on BA's list) Juan Aracena, C, South Dade Senior HS Where did you see this? www.instagram.com/explore/locations/8590830/jetblue-park-at-fenway-south/
|
|
|
Post by stevedillard on Jun 13, 2021 11:38:54 GMT -5
This probably belies a more general organizational strategy or their board played out in a manner in which they viewed the difference between best player available in round one was not all that significant from bpa in round 3. Or, they just really loved Nick Yorke more than anyone else on their board at the time. For me, I think it’s more likely that this was general strategy. It’s why I said I suspect they go underslot. My guess is likely as good as anyone else’s. We're all just guessing about philosophy at this point, but one need look no further than the J2 International signings, where they are spreading the money around rather than go for the hot prospects. Now, 16 year olds are at a different volatility than a 21 year old college junior. But if they come down to 18 year old HS kids, say "safer" Leiter/Davis are off the board, maybe they mitigate by signing several second/third round pick value kids, like they're bringing into JetBlue. Or maybe they like Mayer, too, and would take that risk, but wouldn't for Watson/Lawler. At that point, dangle the discount, and don't really drop too far in terms of value for risk (I think the Baltimore drop of about 10-12 ranking points (2nd pick for ranking of 13) to save 2.5 million for Kjersted may be a bit more than I'd be excited by, but drop 5 raking points to save 500K to 800K would seem reasonable to me). The other, equally important, half of the calculus is what you do with money if you save some. Not sure the $800K would net another Blaze Jordan sort, but could be spread around in rounds 3, 4 and 5 for several kids. Sort of like HS kids in the 150-320 BA range, who might be willing to forgoe college for a certain smaller price. What that price is, we don't know, but would be interesting batting practice fodder at JetBlue park.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Jun 13, 2021 13:04:01 GMT -5
Yeah I can't see them going under slot at 4 (i.e., taking a guy other than the top 6 or 7 that seems established at this point). The strategy makes sense when you think the underslot player is close to the player you might have ranked a shade higher, which I believe was probably the case last year with Yorke at pick 17 (which might as well be another universe from pick 4, keep in mind). I'm not inclined to think that they think a player outside the top 6 or 7 guys is close enough to make the underslot thing worth it. Now, if they learn that, say, Watson is willing to take like $2m less than the guys they have 4-5-6 and they think he's close? OK maybe. But I also don't know why he'd do that. The difference between pick 4 and pick 7 is roughly $1.2M. Maybe he'd take way underslot to sign at 2 with Texas where the slot is more than $1M higher, but I don't see him giving the Sox a 7-figure discount, and once we're talking Jobe with the HS RH risk and the other guys with the talent dropoff, I'd rather them take one of the remaining guys in the Mayer-Leiter-Davis-Lawlar-Rocker-House-Watson group, preferably one of the first four I listed. Don’t you think they might be willing to go $400-$500k under slot for right player though? Or even $300k? I’m pulling a random number here saying slightly under slot for player if they are hung up on 2-3 guys? Again I’m not saying they will just if player a is wanting 200 over vs player b willing to accept 300 under..... But I don’t consider that an under slot player. Just that I won’t be surprised if said player doesn’t get full slot value. I also believe the name BOSTON RED SOX will play up here. I think with no evidence that players will hope to be picked by Red Sox over say the orioles or tigers even or royals. Etc. Again this isn’t fact based just a more curious observation that could happen. I believe every year there are players who kinda “push” their way to a certain team they like over others. And one would like to believe it has more than just $$$$ figures on why. Example: bo bichette turned down 3 offers of first round money to get picked by blue jays who “only” offered $1.1 million. At the time there was talk mid first round teams were interested in him. Wil Myers is another “bonus baby” who did the same thing. When he was in Midwest league he openly told us at the hotel he was staying at ( for all star game) that he turned down 8 offers from other teams in mid to late first round for Kansas City. ( now he got a large bonus from them too). I truly believe this could happen if a player wants to play for Red Sox over another team. Negotiations haven’t even started yet or not openly started that media is reporting. Again NO facts just it’s been done before it could be a possibility here adding to the “ who knows what will happen” with those first four picks jargon ( and beyond there even) You answered your own question in the first paragraph with your second. I can't see them significantly going off their board to save $200-$500k on the first pick. That's a pittance.
|
|
|
Post by dyoungteach on Jun 13, 2021 13:15:42 GMT -5
Don’t you think they might be willing to go $400-$500k under slot for right player though? Or even $300k? I’m pulling a random number here saying slightly under slot for player if they are hung up on 2-3 guys? Again I’m not saying they will just if player a is wanting 200 over vs player b willing to accept 300 under..... But I don’t consider that an under slot player. Just that I won’t be surprised if said player doesn’t get full slot value. I also believe the name BOSTON RED SOX will play up here. I think with no evidence that players will hope to be picked by Red Sox over say the orioles or tigers even or royals. Etc. Again this isn’t fact based just a more curious observation that could happen. I believe every year there are players who kinda “push” their way to a certain team they like over others. And one would like to believe it has more than just $$$$ figures on why. Example: bo bichette turned down 3 offers of first round money to get picked by blue jays who “only” offered $1.1 million. At the time there was talk mid first round teams were interested in him. Wil Myers is another “bonus baby” who did the same thing. When he was in Midwest league he openly told us at the hotel he was staying at ( for all star game) that he turned down 8 offers from other teams in mid to late first round for Kansas City. ( now he got a large bonus from them too). I truly believe this could happen if a player wants to play for Red Sox over another team. Negotiations haven’t even started yet or not openly started that media is reporting. Again NO facts just it’s been done before it could be a possibility here adding to the “ who knows what will happen” with those first four picks jargon ( and beyond there even) You answered your own question in the first paragraph with your second. I can't see them significantly going off their board to save $200-$500k on the first pick. That's a pittance. $500,000k is a pittance? What draft bonus slots have I been watching? Because $500k sure isn’t a pittance. Not is $200k. Especially after the 10th round. That amount is huge
|
|
|
Post by thegoodthebadthesox on Jun 13, 2021 15:00:02 GMT -5
You answered your own question in the first paragraph with your second. I can't see them significantly going off their board to save $200-$500k on the first pick. That's a pittance. $500,000k is a pittance? What draft bonus slots have I been watching? Because $500k sure isn’t a pittance. Not is $200k. Especially after the 10th round. That amount is huge Not for what you're giving up. Passing on a top 4 talent just to get an additional high school guy with upside or two just isn't worth it at that spot specifically. I mean, Blaze Jordan's bonus was over a million dollars above slot and I wouldn't even want to cut an underslot deal for a prospect of his caliber.
|
|
|
Post by dyoungteach on Jun 13, 2021 15:45:10 GMT -5
$500,000k is a pittance? What draft bonus slots have I been watching? Because $500k sure isn’t a pittance. Not is $200k. Especially after the 10th round. That amount is huge Not for what you're giving up. Passing on a top 4 talent just to get an additional high school guy with upside or two just isn't worth it at that spot specifically. I mean, Blaze Jordan's bonus was over a million dollars above slot and I wouldn't even want to cut an underslot deal for a prospect of his caliber. Seems there are 7-8 (or could be 7-8 players ) equal or close at 4. So you might not be sacrificing top 4 player talent and still be able to save a few hundred thousand dollars.
|
|
|
Post by greatscottcooper on Jun 13, 2021 16:12:16 GMT -5
Not for what you're giving up. Passing on a top 4 talent just to get an additional high school guy with upside or two just isn't worth it at that spot specifically. I mean, Blaze Jordan's bonus was over a million dollars above slot and I wouldn't even want to cut an underslot deal for a prospect of his caliber. Seems there are 7-8 (or could be 7-8 players ) equal or close at 4. So you might not be sacrificing top 4 player talent and still be able to save a few hundred thousand dollars. 7-8 guys? After three are taken? So that means there’s a pool of 8-11 guys all in the same tier? No one is saying that right now. It’s closer to 5-6
|
|
|
Post by philarhody on Jun 13, 2021 17:09:11 GMT -5
$500,000k is a pittance? What draft bonus slots have I been watching? Because $500k sure isn’t a pittance. Not is $200k. Especially after the 10th round. That amount is huge Not for what you're giving up. Passing on a top 4 talent just to get an additional high school guy with upside or two just isn't worth it at that spot specifically. I mean, Blaze Jordan's bonus was over a million dollars above slot and I wouldn't even want to cut an underslot deal for a prospect of his caliber. The problem with your point is the assumption that the Red Sox would be passing on a top 4 talent because they draft fourth. Most drafts have one or maybe two players worthy of being a top four draft pick who are actually drafted in the first four picks. If you blow much of your bonus pool on a guy who is not actually a top 4 talent, you’ve done serious damage to your entire draft. If Chaim Bloom knew he was getting a mlb 3+ war player at 4, this wouldn’t be a discussion. But a quick look at most of the players drafted at 4 over the past couple decades will show you that had teams gone underslot, they wouldn’t have been passing up on “top 4 talent.”
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Jun 13, 2021 18:17:46 GMT -5
You answered your own question in the first paragraph with your second. I can't see them significantly going off their board to save $200-$500k on the first pick. That's a pittance. $500,000k is a pittance? What draft bonus slots have I been watching? Because $500k sure isn’t a pittance. Not is $200k. Especially after the 10th round. That amount is huge That early in the first round, yeah, it's not a big difference, at least in my opinion. Consider they saved $900k on the Yorke pick last year. It doesn't make sense to screw around with 1-4 in order to sign like, Nick Northcut or Blake Loubier or Alex Scherff (what you're talking about with that kind of over-slot bonus). If you're going to go over-slot by $1M with a later pick? Then yeah, that's a significant enough savings to make it worth it, I think. You save that kind of money when you're picking Cameron Cannon at 43. At number 4 overall, if Player A is the BPA and you've got Player B a little behind him, and the bonus difference is just $500k, it better be REAL close if you go with Player B, to me. Now, if we're talking more like $1M, that might be a bit different and I'd say you can allow for a bit more space between the two. It's all relative and theoretical though.
|
|
|
Post by jaffinator on Jun 13, 2021 18:54:13 GMT -5
Anybody catch the Arizona-Ole Miss Super Regional the other day? Doug Nikhazy has been killing it this year. Doesn't have top of the line velo (mostly runs his fb 88-92) but crazy whiff numbers, especially with his multiple secondaries. Given his history of proven SEC competition, he might not save any cash at 40, but would love him there. Also might not be available, depending on how teams view the possibility of boosting his stuff a couple mph.
|
|
|
Post by dyoungteach on Jun 13, 2021 20:34:28 GMT -5
Seems there are 7-8 (or could be 7-8 players ) equal or close at 4. So you might not be sacrificing top 4 player talent and still be able to save a few hundred thousand dollars. 7-8 guys? After three are taken? So that means there’s a pool of 8-11 guys all in the same tier? No one is saying that right now. It’s closer to 5-6 Nobody said after 3 are taken. There are 7-8 players being talked about at draft position 4. And that’s not counting the “ under slot /overdraft” guys who if taken this site will melt down. My gosh....Mayer, laywer, Leiter, Davis, rocker, house, jobe, Watson. ... that’s 8. Taking off jobe that’s 7. The difference between 4 and 8 is $1.5 million and 4-7 $900,000. It’s not hard to think if they like player x and he could slide to 7 or 8. That they could take him and split the difference on money. Why in gods green earth are some people so combative when it comes to placing ideas on this site that might be outside the norms? People get so defensive right away. They get so defensive. No nobody is saying this.... and then last year happens which if someone said they would do they would have had their head taken off
|
|
jimoh
Veteran
Posts: 4,123
|
Post by jimoh on Jun 14, 2021 6:03:07 GMT -5
This is just wrong. No one would have had their "head taken off" for suggesting last year that the Red Sox might save money on the 17th pick to spend more later. In fact, no one is HAVING THEIR HEAD TAKEN OFF for anything they say this year. You are simply being repeatedly disagreed with and shown to be wrong for your series of false claims and improbable suggestions.
|
|
|
Post by texs31 on Jun 14, 2021 6:36:36 GMT -5
Unfortunately, this also assumes that teams have the leverage to force players to sign at or below slot. Which they don't. Seems like every year there are 1-2 in the top 10 who sign OVER slot (Austin Martin, last yr, signed for ~900K more than his slot).
So of the 4-5 available when you pick, the Sox would have to evaluate them equally AND find the one that is willing to play ball. Sure it's possible, but the likelihood starts decreasing for sure.
So what you're likely looking at is someone outside of that top 8 that Boston (in some combination of talent and probability to reach that talent) feels isn't THAT far outside. It's really why the one team that has repeatedly been mentioned as possibly going below slot is Baltimore (only 1 pick behind Boston) and those "below slot" rumors aren't mentioning anyone in that top 8. You're hearing Frelick, etc.
|
|
|
Post by greatscottcooper on Jun 14, 2021 6:55:09 GMT -5
I don't think it makes much sense for the Red Sox to "cut a deal" at the top. Now there seems to be some confusion in what it means to cut a deal so I will use an analogy to make my point.
You have to buy a car, you have the money to afford the Porshce but some people in your position say you should buy the Honda Accord and use the rest of your money on something else.
We are all (most of us) saying to go buy the Porchse. Now, that doesn't mean you walk right in and pay the sticker price, maybe you negotiate the price down a few thousand dollars. But you still went with the Porsche and not the Honda.
Here's the point. When we talk about "cutting a deal" I think most of us envision signing a lesser talent and saving a significant chunk of change. Is it possible the Sox sign someone in that elite teir and save 200-600K in money? absolutely. But I doubt their game plan is to "cut a deal" and save some money. You have the #4 pick in the draft, you do your best to get the Porsche, and if you truly believe there is one guy on the board above the rest you pay the damn sticker price if you have to.
|
|
|