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 ematz1423 on Mar 9, 2021 0:06:37 GMT -5
I’d have zero issues with Davis or Madden at 4 They’ll have to do something pretty wild to disappoint me. Madden went a complete game holding his velocity which the other pitchers haven't done yet this year. I definitely think madden is going to shoot up the boards and I'd be happy with him at 4 if he keeps pitching the way he he has. I agree with you they'd have to go way off script at 4 for me to be disappointed. Guys like Mayer, Lawlar, House, del Castillo, Davis for hitters and madden, Rocker, Leiter and hill would all add a lot to the farm. We'll see who they end up with.
|
|
cdj
Veteran
Posts: 15,681
|
Post by cdj on Mar 9, 2021 1:47:21 GMT -5
I’d have zero issues with Davis or Madden at 4 They’ll have to do something pretty wild to disappoint me. Madden went a complete game holding his velocity which the other pitchers haven't done yet this year. I definitely think madden is going to shoot up the boards and I'd be happy with him at 4 if he keeps pitching the way he he has. I agree with you they'd have to go way off script at 4 for me to be disappointed. Guys like Mayer, Lawlar, House, del Castillo, Davis for hitters and madden, Rocker, Leiter and hill would all add a lot to the farm. We'll see who they end up with. If they can hypothetically get Davis or one of the helium guys that haven’t hung around the top for a long time at 4 and they can get them underslot then I think that would be incredible I think teams draft boards are going to be all over the place with the missed year and the strong depth at the top
|
|
|
Post by unitspin on Mar 9, 2021 5:42:48 GMT -5
The fact that ppl are debating whether its worth it to draft a pitcher with the #4 pick is laughable. We literally just signed a GM from an org that is built off the concept of taking as many pitchers as possible with hopes of developing a couple to use as trade bait when they get too expensive. If you look at the rays last couple of drafts they go pitcher for the majority of their picks.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Mar 9, 2021 8:31:31 GMT -5
The fact that ppl are debating whether its worth it to draft a pitcher with the #4 pick is laughable. We literally just signed a GM from an org that is built off the concept of taking as many pitchers as possible with hopes of developing a couple to use as trade bait when they get too expensive. If you look at the rays last couple of drafts they go pitcher for the majority of their picks. "Whether it's worth it" and "what Bloom will do" are two different issues. And considering that what Bloom did in his first draft with the Red Sox was take two position players with his first two picks, I'm a little skeptical of your take on the second question.
|
|
|
Post by unitspin on Mar 9, 2021 9:41:16 GMT -5
The fact that ppl are debating whether its worth it to draft a pitcher with the #4 pick is laughable. We literally just signed a GM from an org that is built off the concept of taking as many pitchers as possible with hopes of developing a couple to use as trade bait when they get too expensive. If you look at the rays last couple of drafts they go pitcher for the majority of their picks. "Whether it's worth it" and "what Bloom will do" are two different issues. And considering that what Bloom did in his first draft with the Red Sox was take two position players with his first two picks, I'm a little skeptical of your take on the second question. Ultimately it depends on who is drafted before #4. If rocker and leiter are off the board it wont matter. If they are not then we will find out how bloom feels about them.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Mar 9, 2021 10:25:39 GMT -5
"Whether it's worth it" and "what Bloom will do" are two different issues. And considering that what Bloom did in his first draft with the Red Sox was take two position players with his first two picks, I'm a little skeptical of your take on the second question. Ultimately it depends on who is drafted before #4. If rocker and leiter are off the board it wont matter. If they are not then we will find out how bloom feels about them. True enough! Though for all we know position players will be the consensus 1/2 picks by the time the draft rolls around.
|
|
badfishnbc
Veteran
Doing you all a favor and leaving through the gate in right field since 2012.
Posts: 482
|
Post by badfishnbc on Mar 9, 2021 15:17:12 GMT -5
Callis making an informed guess, along with an assessment of #4's impact on the system at large:
|
|
|
Post by ramireja on Mar 9, 2021 18:16:57 GMT -5
|
|
jimoh
Veteran
Posts: 4,139
|
Post by jimoh on Mar 9, 2021 20:20:35 GMT -5
Callis making an informed guess, along with an assessment of #4's impact on the system at large: Thanks. All of Callis’ Sox comments today on Twitter are interesting.
|
|
|
Post by dyoungteach on Mar 10, 2021 5:17:53 GMT -5
I’ve been thinking about the “great debate”. Pitcher can hitter with the 4 pick. Bloom did come from Tampa. He knows value of pitching. And our system could use an impact arm or two ( I believe he has been searching for one in trade also). So one can respect the take the ace mentality. We are a big market team. We spend with the top teams. Which means we can ( and should) pay to get our ace when time is right. Cole/verlander/greinke/pedro/schilling/maddux/Bauer/Padres staff now/scherzer. All of these names helped put teams over top and were bought at their ace prime time via trade or signing eventually. We can afford to do that ( like with sale). We can’t afford to do it 4/5 of rotation nor should we. So pitching in second round. Late first. Third. International is huge. But an impact talent here is massive and best guaranteed impact talent is hitter ( nothing is guaranteed but that hitter will hold value longer if both flop or injury takes place). And yes impact pitching costs but it’s guaranteed production then. Draft for your #2-#5 pitchers ( you can do this cheaper) than spending top 4 pick where hopefully it’s another 30 years till you pick here again.
I believe you have to start looking at the house or even below slot signing but I also think if Leiter is there they will take him if he keeps up his current performances.
The right everyday player impacts this team more than 7 plus years of development and the maybe chance he becomes an ace ( because at 4 that’s ever but what he better be. An ace). Cole to Bauer are latest examples of it just takes time to develop as a true ace and Bieber or degrom are examples where it can be done cheaper and with less risk in other rounds or late first. ( I like seabold as great 3-5 starter).
Here’s hoping we get the impact bat and then in second and third we target a higher end pitcher. Who still could be an ace. And I truly believe the ptbn will have an interesting pitcher or two in it
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Mar 10, 2021 9:29:32 GMT -5
I’ve been thinking about the “great debate”. Pitcher can hitter with the 4 pick. Bloom did come from Tampa. He knows value of pitching. And our system could use an impact arm or two ( I believe he has been searching for one in trade also). So one can respect the take the ace mentality. We are a big market team. We spend with the top teams. Which means we can ( and should) pay to get our ace when time is right. Cole/verlander/greinke/pedro/schilling/maddux/Bauer/Padres staff now/scherzer. All of these names helped put teams over top and were bought at their ace prime time via trade or signing eventually. We can afford to do that ( like with sale). We can’t afford to do it 4/5 of rotation nor should we. So pitching in second round. Late first. Third. International is huge. But an impact talent here is massive and best guaranteed impact talent is hitter ( nothing is guaranteed but that hitter will hold value longer if both flop or injury takes place). And yes impact pitching costs but it’s guaranteed production then. Draft for your #2-#5 pitchers ( you can do this cheaper) than spending top 4 pick where hopefully it’s another 30 years till you pick here again. I believe you have to start looking at the house or even below slot signing but I also think if Leiter is there they will take him if he keeps up his current performances. The right everyday player impacts this team more than 7 plus years of development and the maybe chance he becomes an ace ( because at 4 that’s ever but what he better be. An ace). Cole to Bauer are latest examples of it just takes time to develop as a true ace and Bieber or degrom are examples where it can be done cheaper and with less risk in other rounds or late first. ( I like seabold as great 3-5 starter). Here’s hoping we get the impact bat and then in second and third we target a higher end pitcher. Who still could be an ace. And I truly believe the ptbn will have an interesting pitcher or two in it I’m fine with this, but the problem with looking to other avenues for your #1 is that we have seen Cole and Bauer sign for insanely high annual salaries (even if Bauer’s contract also has benefits). Further, as we saw with Price (and we see with next year’s FA class), you tend to pay for a level of accomplishment that nay be more past than future. I feel better about signing a hitter at 30 than a pitcher. So the wait-and-pay model assumes a large chunk of payroll goes to (likely-over-30-yo) #1. As we see with Sale, that is hugely risky.
|
|
|
Post by dyoungteach on Mar 10, 2021 10:28:03 GMT -5
I’m fine with this, but the problem with looking to other avenues for your #1 is that we have seen Cole and Bauer sign for insanely high annual salaries (even if Bauer’s contract also has benefits). Further, as we saw with Price (and we see with next year’s FA class), you tend to pay for a level of accomplishment that nay be more past than future. I feel better about signing a hitter at 30 than a pitcher.
So the wait-and-pay model assumes a large chunk of payroll goes to (likely-over-30-yo) #1. As we see with Sale, that is hugely risky. [/quote]
Sales trade and contract wasn’t the issue. His large contract before he hit free agency was clearly the issue. Don’t do that and you go get Cole or Bauer. Price we lost on. But Pedro, schilling, sale trade we did not. And along the way we were able to draft a Lester who developed into an ace and we all know ownership bungled that or Lester just would have been coming off his extension, so perhaps price wouldn’t be needed.
My point stands. At 4 you don’t take pitcher. You can draft in second or next year or year after at later time and still develop your ace or let someone else develop your ace for you and acquire him later. Take the hitter at 4 and hopefully one of the shortstops.
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Mar 10, 2021 10:40:26 GMT -5
I’m fine with this, but the problem with looking to other avenues for your #1 is that we have seen Cole and Bauer sign for insanely high annual salaries (even if Bauer’s contract also has benefits). Further, as we saw with Price (and we see with next year’s FA class), you tend to pay for a level of accomplishment that nay be more past than future. I feel better about signing a hitter at 30 than a pitcher. So the wait-and-pay model assumes a large chunk of payroll goes to (likely-over-30-yo) #1. As we see with Sale, that is hugely risky. Sales trade and contract wasn’t the issue. His large contract before he hit free agency was clearly the issue. Don’t do that and you go get Cole or Bauer. Price we lost on. But Pedro, schilling, sale trade we did not. And along the way we were able to draft a Lester who developed into an ace and we all know ownership bungled that or Lester just would have been coming off his extension, so perhaps price wouldn’t be needed. My point stands. At 4 you don’t take pitcher. You can draft in second or next year or year after at later time and still develop your ace or let someone else develop your ace for you and acquire him later. Take the hitter at 4 and hopefully one of the shortstops. [/quote] My point about Sale is simply that they are going to pay him for 1.5 years of rehab. If Cole goes down, how does that signing look? Or, in Price’s case: paying a guy because he *was* a 1, and getting a 2ish, then maybe a 3ish... I just think there are no Yahtzees bigger than having an ace age around 24-29 on the relative cheap. It requires huge drafting risk, but if you hit, it gives you a massive window of opportunity — bigger even than getting a Bryce Harper or whatever.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Mar 10, 2021 10:51:07 GMT -5
The WAR leaderboards have way more pitchers over 30 than hitters over 30, so really I think I'd rather spend the FA money on older pitchers than hitters. It seems like the risk of just going into performance decline is higher with position players.
Plus there's kind of a survivor bias that might argue in favor of older pitchers: if a, say, 29-year-old pitcher has made it to free agency without suffering a major injury in their career then perhaps the odds are better that they'll stay healthy.
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Mar 10, 2021 11:13:06 GMT -5
The WAR leaderboards have way more pitchers over 30 than hitters over 30, so really I think I'd rather spend the FA money on older pitchers than hitters. It seems like the risk of just going into performance decline is higher with position players. Plus there's kind of a survivor bias that might argue in favor of older pitchers: if a, say, 29-year-old pitcher has made it to free agency without suffering a major injury in their career then perhaps the odds are better that they'll stay healthy. Is that true? Looking at bWAR’s active WAR leaders, the top 20 has 8 pitchers. Some of those pitchers are great long-term investments and first-ballot HOFers. Verlander, Scherzer, Greinke, Kershaw... all kept a great WAR pace after 30. But others.... trickier. A few examples. Adam Wainwright (whom I love), has averaged 2.0 bWAR a year post 30... but this is because he had 2 6 WAR seasons. He has had *seven* sub-2 seasons, 5 sub-1 (tho one was last year). Lester, #15 on the list has been good... average 2.5 bWAR since 30.... but that is still not a #1. (Of course, compare this to Pujols, who is a nightmare FA signing: he gas averaged 2.4 bWAR since 30, and amassed a far higher post-30 total). #11 on the active list, Felix Hernandez. He is under .5 bWAR since 30. But -50 to age 29. And Sale is TBD at age 31, though you have spent a year salary for 0, and will now spend another year salary for (we hope) 1/2 a season. If he is great, gets, say, 3 bWAR, he is still under 2 bWAR a year for the three seasons age 30-32. That is pricey. So *at least* half the career WAR leaders in pitchers are a bit shakey post-30 if you are paying them FA premium.
|
|
shagworthy
Veteran
My neckbeard game is on point.
Posts: 1,845
|
Post by shagworthy on Mar 10, 2021 11:40:16 GMT -5
I’m fine with this, but the problem with looking to other avenues for your #1 is that we have seen Cole and Bauer sign for insanely high annual salaries (even if Bauer’s contract also has benefits). Further, as we saw with Price (and we see with next year’s FA class), you tend to pay for a level of accomplishment that nay be more past than future. I feel better about signing a hitter at 30 than a pitcher. So the wait-and-pay model assumes a large chunk of payroll goes to (likely-over-30-yo) #1. As we see with Sale, that is hugely risky. Sales trade and contract wasn’t the issue. His large contract before he hit free agency was clearly the issue. Don’t do that and you go get Cole or Bauer. Price we lost on. But Pedro, schilling, sale trade we did not. And along the way we were able to draft a Lester who developed into an ace and we all know ownership bungled that or Lester just would have been coming off his extension, so perhaps price wouldn’t be needed. My point stands. At 4 you don’t take pitcher. You can draft in second or next year or year after at later time and still develop your ace or let someone else develop your ace for you and acquire him later. Take the hitter at 4 and hopefully one of the shortstops. My point about Sale is simply that they are going to pay him for 1.5 years of rehab. If Cole goes down, how does that signing look? Or, in Price’s case: paying a guy because he *was* a 1, and getting a 2ish, then maybe a 3ish... I just think there are no Yahtzees bigger than having an ace age around 24-29 on the relative cheap. It requires huge drafting risk, but if you hit, it gives you a massive window of opportunity — bigger even than getting a Bryce Harper or whatever. [/quote] There was an interesting article in The Athletic about how some organizations seem to be better at developing fastball velocity than others, and no shocker, the Indians are towards the top of that list along with the Rays and the Brewers. I bring this up because those teams seem to churn out arm after arm of above average major league pitchers from modest beginnings. It would be nice to see the Sox start to get more from the clay they already have. To go 10+ years without developing a single worthwhile starter from the draft is really pathetic and shows something isn't working in their instruction (I do not count Erod, for those who are about to claim him, he was mostly developed by the Orioles). Like you said previously, at some point, buying other people's starters gets cost prohibitive. We overpaid Price to come to Boston, and predictably so there were bumps along the way. I had no problem with the Sale trade, and still don't, the re-signing of him was premature to be sure, but I'm hopeful that we will at least get some value out of him. The Eovaldi deal still mystifies me, just looking at his medical charts should have been enough to nix that conversation. This is all a very longwinded way of saying we've had a much better track record of identifying position players of value to draft, and developing them accordingly. If we don't change how we develop our starters, the best course of action would be to overload on high quality position players and trade from that stockpile for young controllable proven arms. As much as I would love us to land a can't miss pitcher in the draft, I'm not convinced yet that we know how to develop them to the fullest in our system.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Mar 10, 2021 11:53:33 GMT -5
The WAR leaderboards have way more pitchers over 30 than hitters over 30, so really I think I'd rather spend the FA money on older pitchers than hitters. It seems like the risk of just going into performance decline is higher with position players. Plus there's kind of a survivor bias that might argue in favor of older pitchers: if a, say, 29-year-old pitcher has made it to free agency without suffering a major injury in their career then perhaps the odds are better that they'll stay healthy. Is that true? Looking at bWAR’s active WAR leaders, the top 20 has 8 pitchers. Some of those pitchers are great long-term investments and first-ballot HOFers. Verlander, Scherzer, Greinke, Kershaw... all kept a great WAR pace after 30. But others.... trickier. A few examples. Adam Wainwright (whom I love), has averaged 2.0 bWAR a year post 30... but this is because he had 2 6 WAR seasons. He has had *seven* sub-2 seasons, 5 sub-1 (tho one was last year). Lester, #15 on the list has been good... average 2.5 bWAR since 30.... but that is still not a #1. (Of course, compare this to Pujols, who is a nightmare FA signing: he gas averaged 2.4 bWAR since 30, and amassed a far higher post-30 total). #11 on the active list, Felix Hernandez. He is under .5 bWAR since 30. But -50 to age 29. And Sale is TBD at age 31, though you have spent a year salary for 0, and will now spend another year salary for (we hope) 1/2 a season. If he is great, gets, say, 3 bWAR, he is still under 2 bWAR a year for the three seasons age 30-32. That is pricey. So *at least* half the career WAR leaders in pitchers are a bit shakey post-30 if you are paying them FA premium. I was thinking of the season leaderboards. E.g., for 2019, the top 20 pitchers for fWAR included 10 guys over 30. Among position players there were only 3, and they were #'s 18, 19, and 20.
12 of the 35 pitchers with 3+ WAR were over 30 (34%). For position players it was 13 of 64 (20%).
Any older free agent signing is a risky proposition, but there's this idea out there that pitchers are especially risky and I don't think the evidence bears that out.
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Mar 10, 2021 12:15:25 GMT -5
Is that true? Looking at bWAR’s active WAR leaders, the top 20 has 8 pitchers. Some of those pitchers are great long-term investments and first-ballot HOFers. Verlander, Scherzer, Greinke, Kershaw... all kept a great WAR pace after 30. But others.... trickier. A few examples. Adam Wainwright (whom I love), has averaged 2.0 bWAR a year post 30... but this is because he had 2 6 WAR seasons. He has had *seven* sub-2 seasons, 5 sub-1 (tho one was last year). Lester, #15 on the list has been good... average 2.5 bWAR since 30.... but that is still not a #1. (Of course, compare this to Pujols, who is a nightmare FA signing: he gas averaged 2.4 bWAR since 30, and amassed a far higher post-30 total). #11 on the active list, Felix Hernandez. He is under .5 bWAR since 30. But -50 to age 29. And Sale is TBD at age 31, though you have spent a year salary for 0, and will now spend another year salary for (we hope) 1/2 a season. If he is great, gets, say, 3 bWAR, he is still under 2 bWAR a year for the three seasons age 30-32. That is pricey. So *at least* half the career WAR leaders in pitchers are a bit shakey post-30 if you are paying them FA premium. I was thinking of the season leaderboards. E.g., for 2019, the top 20 pitchers for fWAR included 10 guys over 30. Among position players there were only 3, and they were #'s 18, 19, and 20.
12 of the 35 pitchers with 3+ WAR were over 30 (34%). For position players it was 13 of 64 (20%).
Any older free agent signing is a risky proposition, but there's this idea out there that pitchers are especially risky and I don't think the evidence bears that out.
Fair. I admit, I haven’t done a deep-dive. So I am interested in data that points a different way. But the one issue with looking at one year is the Wainwright Scenario (as I will now call it!)... no doubt a great pitcher, and for two post-30 years, one of the elite players in the league. But if you signed him to a, say, 5-year massive contract, the *best* you do is get 2/5 of your money’s worth. My hypothesis is, in short, that 30+ year old pitchers signing, say, George springer’s deal, have a higher likelihood of uneven WAR distribution or total failure. (By uneven, I mean you might get a year or two of elite performance, but you also will get mediocre or poor performance in the balance). Put differently, I suspect you are more likely to be paying for a past peak a starter never reaches again than would be the case with a hitter. (So, for example, and obviously I pick these simply as anecdotes, not as science, JDM, after signing with the Sox, had his highest career WAR at age 30; Price’s best Sox season was only his fifth highest WAR season... and his next best was his 7th highest WAR season. The other two years were 2 of his 3 lowest in a season since age 24. They clearly paid for what he had been, not what he would be). That said.... sometimes that might even be worth it. If Sale has a sick last year on this contract and the Sox win the WS, even if his overall $:WAR ratio is not great, I say money well spent. But that is a big risk. (To be clear: I was for the Sale trade, and I even get the extension. I’m not complaining. I’m merely acknowledging that the Sox took some calculated risks, and some of the worst case scenarios have played out. That is life).
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Mar 10, 2021 12:23:08 GMT -5
I was thinking of the season leaderboards. E.g., for 2019, the top 20 pitchers for fWAR included 10 guys over 30. Among position players there were only 3, and they were #'s 18, 19, and 20.
12 of the 35 pitchers with 3+ WAR were over 30 (34%). For position players it was 13 of 64 (20%).
Any older free agent signing is a risky proposition, but there's this idea out there that pitchers are especially risky and I don't think the evidence bears that out.
Fair. I admit, I haven’t done a deep-dive. So I am interested in data that points a different way. But the one issue with looking at one year is the Wainwright Scenario (as I will now call it!)... no doubt a great pitcher, and for two post-30 years, one of the elite players in the league. But if you signed him to a, say, 5-year massive contract, the *best* you do is get 2/5 of your money’s worth. My hypothesis is, in short, that 30+ year old pitchers signing, say, George springer’s deal, have a higher likelihood of uneven WAR distribution or total failure. (By uneven, I mean you might get a year or two of elite performance, but you also will get mediocre or poor performance in the balance). Put differently, I suspect you are more likely to be paying for a past peak a starter never reaches again than would be the case with a hitter. (So, for example, and obviously I pick these simply as anecdotes, not as science, JDM, after signing with the Sox, had his highest career WAR at age 30; Price’s best Sox season was only his fifth highest WAR season... and his next best was his 7th highest WAR season. The other two years were 2 of his 3 lowest in a season since age 24. They clearly paid for what he had been, not what he would be). That said.... sometimes that might even be worth it. If Sale has a sick last year on this contract and the Sox win the WS, even if his overall $:WAR ratio is not great, I say money well spent. But that is a big risk. (To be clear: I was for the Sale trade, and I even get the extension. I’m not complaining. I’m merely acknowledging that the Sox took some calculated risks, and some of the worst case scenarios have played out. That is life). Add: Looking at the top-10 for bWAR in 2018 and 2017... just cursory... there are not a lot of 30+ers at all. But Scherzer is in both, and Kluber is in one. So that is two guys. Scherzer, again, is a first ballot HOFer. If you signed Kluber to a massive 4 year deal after his top-10 finish that year (he was 31), you’d get 5.7 bWAR, then -0.4, then .1. And whatever the Yankees get this year. Last quick thing: I think Garrett Richards shows the distinction: he signed to a $10 million contract having last hit 2 WAR in 2015. He is worth it based on the stuff. But I don’t know that a hitter with the “stuff” equivalent (hit tool?) who had last had a 2 WAR season gets a contract near that.
|
|
|
Post by vermontsox1 on Mar 10, 2021 19:24:44 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by pedroelgrande on Mar 10, 2021 20:19:31 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by pedroelgrande on Mar 11, 2021 21:53:55 GMT -5
Brady House on fire so far.
|
|
|
Post by ramireja on Mar 11, 2021 23:11:06 GMT -5
Not a name we've brought up, and to be clear, I'm not suggesting this is a candidate for #4 overall. An interesting helium prep player though...
|
|
|
Post by dyoungteach on Mar 12, 2021 4:36:35 GMT -5
I don’t know man.... you can say “don’t draft pitchers at #4” all you want, but if (and I can’t imagine it’ll happen) Leiter was around, I jump on him. Where do you get an upside like that if you don’t risk it all? I concur. I will always take a position player over a pitcher if you're the same level of hype about them both, but you also have to be ready to pounce when there's a pitcher who looks to have it, whatever "it" is... At this point, Leiter is the only guy who gives me "it" vibes. Also, I feel like the second round pick this year almost has to be a pitcher. It seems a more sound strategy to me. BPA at #4 (probably a position player, and I can't imagine #4 overall will expect or get much at all if anything over slot), take a projectable high school pitcher who falls in round 2. Pay over slot if needed, I'm willing to punt a 6th and an 8th rounder on senior signs to create that cash. This way, you're still (hopefully) getting a stud at #4 and playing a Safer lottery in round 2. I can agree with that. Leiter was first round projection in high school. Was early first in college and now in last year is rising to top overall pitcher. That’s a pitcher that has “it” and keeps improving with downside of #3-5 starter. I can jump on that bandwagon but still hope one of the shortstops are sitting there at 4
|
|
|
Post by dyoungteach on Mar 12, 2021 4:39:49 GMT -5
The fact that ppl are debating whether its worth it to draft a pitcher with the #4 pick is laughable. We literally just signed a GM from an org that is built off the concept of taking as many pitchers as possible with hopes of developing a couple to use as trade bait when they get too expensive. If you look at the rays last couple of drafts they go pitcher for the majority of their picks. They don’t have top 4 pick. I’ll agree take pitcher late or add a high high end pitcher in second. But not at 4 unless he’s THE stud of the draft ( Leiter in this one). Anyone else. You can get that value in second with high upside pay him a contract high schooler. ( I can start naming names of those guys all over in mlb)
|
|
|