BA on Draft

Loosey · May 11, 2015

Why NOT take a chance on punting the pick, if you're the Twins?

It may not be ideal to not have #1 and #2 picks to slot in to your development system, but given the relatively strong talent spread throughout the Twins' farm now, I can't really see it as being the end of the world. Especially if the trade-off is getting a #7 pick in 2016 that would actually be likely to be worth first round money. Maybe you focus on college guys at the top of the draft in 2016, instead of high schoolers, so they can get slotted roughly in to the same level as the HS kid you did't sign in 2015.

What am I missing?

I wonder the same thing. I think of it this way, if you miss out on say a high schooler who doesn't sign this year they would be projected to be in Majors at earliest 2019, maybe 2018 if they are fast tracked. Instead "punt" as SD says and if you miss out you get another pick next year in a better draft where next years #7 pick may be more comparable to this years #2 or #3. Plus if the buy you take next year is a College kid the Twins still may get the benefit of them in the Majors in that same 2018-2019 season. I like the idea personally.

Also, I am not as in tune with the draft as most of you are. What is the deal with Aiken? Why is he not even in the conversation? Did he get TJ? If so, he would be another shoot for the moon risk guy wouldn't he? Or am I talking crazy and clearly have no idea what I am talking about?

Loosey · May 11, 2015

Why NOT take a chance on punting the pick, if you're the Twins?

It may not be ideal to not have #1 and #2 picks to slot in to your development system, but given the relatively strong talent spread throughout the Twins' farm now, I can't really see it as being the end of the world. Especially if the trade-off is getting a #7 pick in 2016 that would actually be likely to be worth first round money. Maybe you focus on college guys at the top of the draft in 2016, instead of high schoolers, so they can get slotted roughly in to the same level as the HS kid you did't sign in 2015.

What am I missing?

I wonder the same thing. I think of it this way, if you miss out on say a high schooler who doesn't sign this year they would be projected to be in Majors at earliest 2019, maybe 2018 if they are fast tracked. Instead "punt" as SD says and if you miss out you get another pick next year in a better draft where next years #7 pick may be more comparable to this years #2 or #3. Plus if the buy you take next year is a College kid the Twins still may get the benefit of them in the Majors in that same 2018-2019 season. I like the idea personally.

Also, I am not as in tune with the draft as most of you are. What is the deal with Aiken? Why is he not even in the conversation? Did he get TJ? If so, he would be another shoot for the moon risk guy wouldn't he? Or am I talking crazy and clearly have no idea what I am talking about?

Jeremy Nygaard · May 11, 2015

The Astros took serious flak from everyone for their handling of an alleged injured Aiken. Could you imagine how much they would have taken if he wasn't injured?

Not only that, but you risk ruining the relationship between a team and an agent, the organization and your scouts as well as the PR hit you'd have to deal with.

If it were later in the first round and a guy unsuspectingly fell into your laps, I could see that strategy happening - like with the Twins and Gibson - but at six, you just need to have your homework done on six guys.

In the event Rodgers did fall and he were drafted, they'd get it done and get him signed. The mentioned strategy just isn't how the Twins roll, right or wrong.

gunnarthor · May 11, 2015

Since I'm not very smart on this draft stuff in the first place, I have no qualms about asking a stupid question. So I wil.

Why NOT take a chance on punting the pick, if you're the Twins?

I keep hearing about how this draft class is so poor, compared the norm. If that's truly the case (and assuming people feel next year's class will be more "normal"), why shouldn't the Twins go ahead and draft Rodgers and try to sign him for something near slot? If his threat of going to college if he doesn't get $5mil is just posturing, you get him for a reasonable amount given his potential. If you lose him, you get the #7 pick in next year's stronger draft, in addition to their regular #1 pick, and the slot money that goes with those picks.

It may not be ideal to not have #1 and #2 picks to slot in to your development system, but given the relatively strong talent spread throughout the Twins' farm now, I can't really see it as being the end of the world. Especially if the trade-off is getting a #7 pick in 2016 that would actually be likely to be worth first round money. Maybe you focus on college guys at the top of the draft in 2016, instead of high schoolers, so they can get slotted roughly in to the same level as the HS kid you did't sign in 2015.

What am I missing?

You are missing a couple things.

First, you are really under estimating the cost of a lost year of player development. Because so many prospects don't make it, that year of development it huge. Whoever we get at #7 next year will still be another year away from helping the Twins, even if he is a fast riser. And since prospect burn out is so high, punting a year doesn't make sense.

Second, "poor draft" isn't quite right. McDaniel posted something on this but generally when we talk about a draft being poor or good, it's just the first 15 picks or so, after that, all drafts are the same. So it's more important to get the pick right than pass on it and try again a year later with a later pick. Moving down one pick and one year is significantly worse than the pick value at 6 this year.

Houston is a pretty good example of mucking up drafts. For whatever reasons, they haven't drafted that well. They are obviously kicking themselves over last years pick, even though they get #2 in this year's draft. But it wouldn't have taken much common sense to have picked Buxton, Bryant and Rodon and still have this years #4 pick. The first three will be in the majors this year and they could have gone a ton of ways with the #4 pick. Instead, they don't have much return for their picks yet (although Correa looks great) and don't have much room for error with these two picks in a "down draft."

maxisagod · May 11, 2015

Since I'm not very smart on this draft stuff in the first place, I have no qualms about asking a stupid question. So I wil.

Why NOT take a chance on punting the pick, if you're the Twins?

I keep hearing about how this draft class is so poor, compared the norm. If that's truly the case (and assuming people feel next year's class will be more "normal"), why shouldn't the Twins go ahead and draft Rodgers and try to sign him for something near slot? If his threat of going to college if he doesn't get $5mil is just posturing, you get him for a reasonable amount given his potential. If you lose him, you get the #7 pick in next year's stronger draft, in addition to their regular #1 pick, and the slot money that goes with those picks.

It may not be ideal to not have #1 and #2 picks to slot in to your development system, but given the relatively strong talent spread throughout the Twins' farm now, I can't really see it as being the end of the world. Especially if the trade-off is getting a #7 pick in 2016 that would actually be likely to be worth first round money. Maybe you focus on college guys at the top of the draft in 2016, instead of high schoolers, so they can get slotted roughly in to the same level as the HS kid you did't sign in 2015.

What am I missing?

Nothing.
A minimal offer has to be made, so you can't pick just anyone without risking them signing for it or losing the pick. There is also damage of alienating the agent and/or playing by playing hard ball with some one who might end up in your system for the next 10 years or with someone who represents free agents you want to sign.

Mike Sixel · May 11, 2015

Most every former scout that works on the web now has said over and over that punting is a terrible idea. What if you are wrong about next year being strong? You now have no 1st or 2nd round pick this year, that creates a sizable hole in your progression/depth of players. You risk alienating an agent (and his future clients). I can't recall one of the web personalities even hinting this is a good idea.

markos · May 11, 2015

Also, I am not as in tune with the draft as most of you are. What is the deal with Aiken? Why is he not even in the conversation? Did he get TJ? If so, he would be another shoot for the moon risk guy wouldn't he? Or am I talking crazy and clearly have no idea what I am talking about?

My guess is that nobody knows where Aiken will end up until people start to hear rumors about which teams are asking to see his medicals. Jeremy, as the guy with some inside sources, it would be really interesting to know if the Twins have seen or plan to see Aiken's medicals before the draft.

Jeremy Nygaard · May 11, 2015

My guess is that nobody knows where Aiken will end up until people start to hear rumors about which teams are asking to see his medicals. Jeremy, as the guy with some inside sources, it would be really interesting to know if the Twins have seen or plan to see Aiken's medicals before the draft.

As of two weeks ago, it sounded like all teams would have the chance to view his medicals. And I didn't get any indication that the Twins wouldn't want to look.

markos · May 11, 2015

The Astros took serious flak from everyone for their handling of an alleged injured Aiken. Could you imagine how much they would have taken if he wasn't injured?

Not only that, but you risk ruining the relationship between a team and an agent, the organization and your scouts as well as the PR hit you'd have to deal with.

If it were later in the first round and a guy unsuspectingly fell into your laps, I could see that strategy happening - like with the Twins and Gibson - but at six, you just need to have your homework done on six guys.

In the event Rodgers did fall and he were drafted, they'd get it done and get him signed. The mentioned strategy just isn't how the Twins roll, right or wrong.

I think there has been a little misunderstanding with SD Buhr's comment. I don't think he was suggesting to INTENTIONALLY punt the pick, but rather than the downside of failing to sign Rodgers for slot ($3.8M) at #6 isn't super terrible, so the risk that he won't sign for that amount is manageable. I don't think the downsides that has been mentioned a lot regarding damaged relationships, PR hits, etc would apply in this case. Toronto has had lots of recent trouble signing HS kids (Bickford, Beede), but I haven't really heard anything suggesting that they are a pox to be avoided at all costs.

This is my thought: Rodgers sticks with his $5M price tag up to the draft. Twins pick him at #6. They offer him full slot, plus maybe a little extra from below-slot signings later on. Let's say $4M. Does he really not take the $4M? My guess is at that point it is probably 80-20 that he does sign. With the 20% chance that he doesn't sign, the downside is what? From a PR perspective, the Twins should be fine. Maybe they didn't completely bend of backwards to get to the $5M number, but they negotiated fairly and did offer a good deal. In may ways, Rodgers is the one that comes across a little greedy in this scenario.

So for me, I guess it isn't a slam-dunk case that they shouldn't take Rodgers with the #6 pick even if they don't have a deal in place beforehand. Sure, he might not sign, but provided they negotiate fairly I think there is a good chance he signs. And even if he doesn't, the worse-case scenario (#7 next year) isn't a bad consolation prize.

nicksaviking · May 11, 2015

The Astros took serious flak from everyone for their handling of an alleged injured Aiken. Could you imagine how much they would have taken if he wasn't injured?

Not only that, but you risk ruining the relationship between a team and an agent, the organization and your scouts as well as the PR hit you'd have to deal with.

If it were later in the first round and a guy unsuspectingly fell into your laps, I could see that strategy happening - like with the Twins and Gibson - but at six, you just need to have your homework done on six guys.

In the event Rodgers did fall and he were drafted, they'd get it done and get him signed. The mentioned strategy just isn't how the Twins roll, right or wrong.

I think the flak the Astros got was mostly trying to lowball the #1 overall pick by inventing an injury even though they had the money to sign him. Of course the Astros may have actually been right and we all formed a lynch mob to hang an innocent club.

I'd say the Twins picking a player they may not be able to sign would be more like the Pirates drafting Mark Appel three years ago. I don't think anyone is holding that against Pittsburgh. It wouldn't be like the Twins refused to give Rodgers the money, simply their draft pool wouldn't allow for it if in the end the player's demands were impossible to meet. After all, he's not going to go undrafted, someone after pick seven will take a shot at him somewhere in the draft, even if his predraft demands will make it next to impossible for him to get signed.

That being said, no way the Twins punt, this is quite possibly the most risk averse club in the league.

maxisagod · May 11, 2015

I think there has been a little misunderstanding with SD Buhr's comment. I don't think he was suggesting to INTENTIONALLY punt the pick, but rather than the downside of failing to sign Rodgers for slot ($3.8M) at #6 isn't super terrible, so the risk that he won't sign for that amount is manageable. I don't think the downsides that has been mentioned a lot regarding damaged relationships, PR hits, etc would apply in this case. Toronto has had lots of recent trouble signing HS kids (Bickford, Beede), but I haven't really heard anything suggesting that they are a pox to be avoided at all costs.

This is my thought: Rodgers sticks with his $5M price tag up to the draft. Twins pick him at #6. They offer him full slot, plus maybe a little extra from below-slot signings later on. Let's say $4M. Does he really not take the $4M? My guess is at that point it is probably 80-20 that he does sign. With the 20% chance that he doesn't sign, the downside is what? From a PR perspective, the Twins should be fine. Maybe they didn't completely bend of backwards to get to the $5M number, but they negotiated fairly and did offer a good deal. In may ways, Rodgers is the one that comes across a little greedy in this scenario.

So for me, I guess it isn't a slam-dunk case that they shouldn't take Rodgers with the #6 pick even if they don't have a deal in place beforehand. Sure, he might not sign, but provided they negotiate fairly I think there is a good chance he signs. And even if he doesn't, the worse-case scenario (#7 next year) isn't a bad consolation prize.

No the problem is the Twins WILL ask Rodgers agent what it would take to sign him and if his agent gives a number way over slot and say if your not willing please don't draft him.... and they draft him and arn't willing to pay him around what they were asking that could damage relationships by playing hardball.

Now like you said, it hasn't stop the Blue Jays from signing players, so it is a valid point, and teams can do that, but will the Twins?

Steven Buhr · May 11, 2015

I think there has been a little misunderstanding with SD Buhr's comment. I don't think he was suggesting to INTENTIONALLY punt the pick, but rather than the downside of failing to sign Rodgers for slot ($3.8M) at #6 isn't super terrible, so the risk that he won't sign for that amount is manageable. I don't think the downsides that has been mentioned a lot regarding damaged relationships, PR hits, etc would apply in this case. Toronto has had lots of recent trouble signing HS kids (Bickford, Beede), but I haven't really heard anything suggesting that they are a pox to be avoided at all costs.

This is my thought: Rodgers sticks with his $5M price tag up to the draft. Twins pick him at #6. They offer him full slot, plus maybe a little extra from below-slot signings later on. Let's say $4M. Does he really not take the $4M? My guess is at that point it is probably 80-20 that he does sign. With the 20% chance that he doesn't sign, the downside is what? From a PR perspective, the Twins should be fine. Maybe they didn't completely bend of backwards to get to the $5M number, but they negotiated fairly and did offer a good deal. In may ways, Rodgers is the one that comes across a little greedy in this scenario.

So for me, I guess it isn't a slam-dunk case that they shouldn't take Rodgers with the #6 pick even if they don't have a deal in place beforehand. Sure, he might not sign, but provided they negotiate fairly I think there is a good chance he signs. And even if he doesn't, the worse-case scenario (#7 next year) isn't a bad consolation prize.

Thanks, markos, this really does capture my point.

Of course the Twins shouldn't intentionally draft someone they have little/no chance to sign just to get the extra pick next year.

But IF they genuinely feel Rodgers is the best pick at #6, I just don't see the agent-relationship or PR stuff as any kind of factor. If an agent is going to get pissed because you wouldn't pay his guy 130% of slot, that says more about him than the team. If the kid is going to turn down $3.5-4 mil now because he thinks he has a better chance at $5 mil next year, that's pretty stupid.

Losing the 1 year of development is a non-issue because you aren't going to pick the same guy next year, so what do you care if he is set back in his development?

I totally agree that this is not a Twins-like approach and is highl unlikely to happen. In fact, IF they have another name they like pretty much as they do Rodgers, sure, take that guy instead if you think Rodgers would be a difficult sign.

But IF Rodgers is someone they really feel is better than other options at #6, I see no good reason to shy away from taking him.

Jeremy Nygaard · May 11, 2015

I'd say the Twins picking a player they may not be able to sign would be more like the Pirates drafting Mark Appel three years ago. I don't think anyone is holding that against Pittsburgh. It wouldn't be like the Twins refused to give Rodgers the money, simply their draft pool wouldn't allow for it if in the end the player's demands were impossible to meet. After all, he's not going to go undrafted, someone after pick seven will take a shot at him somewhere in the draft, even if his predraft demands will make it next to impossible for him to get signed.

Bingo. The Pirates didn't do their homework on Appel because the chances he fell to them were slim-to-none. And then he fell. They negotiated in good faith and just couldn't get it done.

But Boras said later he would have told the Pirates they had no chance to sign him, if they would have been ANY pre-draft communication.

markos · May 11, 2015

Bingo. The Pirates didn't do their homework on Appel because the chances he fell to them were slim-to-none. And then he fell. They negotiated in good faith and just couldn't get it done.

But Boras said later he would have told the Pirates they had no chance to sign him, if they would have been ANY pre-draft communication.

Do you think teams/agents have good enough relationships that an agent would be comfortable telling the Twins, "If he drops to you at #6, he will still sign for slot. Don't worry. But we are telling everyone above you, both publicly and privately, that the number is $5M, so don't say anything."? It seems like there would need to be an awful lot of trust on both sides.

P.S. Jeremy, thanks for engaging in this thread, answering questions and sharing your insider knowledge. I'm sorry if I ever badger you for answers too much, but I really appreciate the quick answers.

maxisagod · May 11, 2015

Do you think teams/agents have good enough relationships that an agent would be comfortable telling the Twins, "If he drops to you at #6, he will still sign for slot. Don't worry. But we are telling everyone above you, both publicly and privately, that the number is $5M, so don't say anything."? It seems like there would need to be an awful lot of trust on both sides.

P.S. Jeremy, thanks for engaging in this thread, answering questions and sharing your insider knowledge. I'm sorry if I ever badger you for answers too much, but I really appreciate the quick answers.

Some one should talk to Nick Gordon's dad and find out how that went down. After it was reported that odds were he was going to the Twins and for around slot, did other teams call up saying what will he sign fir if WE draft him?

gunnarthor · May 11, 2015

Losing the 1 year of development is a non-issue because you aren't going to pick the same guy next year, so what do you care if he is set back in his development?

It's not the player's development we're losing but the development of the farm system. I think the assumption is that the Twins could/should pass on #6 this year and get the better player next year at #7, since that's a better draft. But that isn't how it'll work. There's no guarantee that #7 next year will be better than #6 this year.

The fact that we could draft a college ready player next year at 7 over a HS player at 6 this year doesn't really matter since the development of the system itself is still delayed. Again, look at Houston. They had 3 100 loss seasons and right now they have a middle of the road ranked system. The system might get better after this draft or it might not but right now the system isn't in as good a position to help the major league club as it could have been by adding more talent at #1 last year (and this is a different discussion than picking the right talent at #1 last year).

So even if the Twins thought the BPA in the draft was there at 6, if they didn't think they could sign him, it wouldn't make sense to draft him.

Jeremy Nygaard · May 11, 2015

Do you think teams/agents have good enough relationships that an agent would be comfortable telling the Twins, "If he drops to you at #6, he will still sign for slot. Don't worry. But we are telling everyone above you, both publicly and privately, that the number is $5M, so don't say anything."? It seems like there would need to be an awful lot of trust on both sides.

P.S. Jeremy, thanks for engaging in this thread, answering questions and sharing your insider knowledge. I'm sorry if I ever badger you for answers too much, but I really appreciate the quick answers.

I think there are a lot of shenanigans that happen. And it works both ways. If the Diamondbacks know they can save $3m and really like a kid that is a mid-first round talent, they can certainly play that game too. "We really hope you fall to us in the 2nd round and we're willing to spend big." His agent turns around and tells all the other teams, "It's gonna cost $3m for us to sign." He went from the 20th overall pick in a slot worth $2.2 to the 43rd pick and getting $3m. Some teams will pony up and he might not fall. Agents just can't blindly throw out a price tag without having an idea some team will pay it.

But, yeah, it comes down to trust. Gonsalves is a great example. When he went in the 4th round, there was a strong belief among scouts, teams and myself that he wasn't going to sign. He was rumored to be a 1st rounder earlier in the spring. I was told immediately, "He'll sign." The area scout had a great relationship with the family and they got it done for an above-slot $700k, which was way less than many teams thought was that breaking point.

It's quite a game that goes on, before, during and after the draft.

Jeremy Nygaard · May 11, 2015

(Catching up on Twitter, it appears Kiley is telling the same story.)

He said it happened multiple times in '14.

Jeremy Nygaard · May 11, 2015

Another good example is the Dozier/Manaea haul the Royals got in '13. You think that wasn't worked out previous to the draft that Manaea would fall to #34?

Hrbowski · May 11, 2015

The Astros took serious flak from everyone for their handling of an alleged injured Aiken. Could you imagine how much they would have taken if he wasn't injured?

Not only that, but you risk ruining the relationship between a team and an agent, the organization and your scouts as well as the PR hit you'd have to deal with.

If it were later in the first round and a guy unsuspectingly fell into your laps, I could see that strategy happening - like with the Twins and Gibson - but at six, you just need to have your homework done on six guys.

In the event Rodgers did fall and he were drafted, they'd get it done and get him signed. The mentioned strategy just isn't how the Twins roll, right or wrong.

Yeah, and can you imagine how popular we would be with draft prospects from then on? I agree 100% with you.

2wins87 · May 12, 2015

I can see both sides of the argument. With the compensation pick next year they aren't necessarily risking a lot if he doesn't sign. But one aspect not really mentioned yet is that they lose the pool space that goes with the first pick potentially affecting the rest of their picks. If they draft a guy at #6 who ends up signing for 5% under slot that's $200k to spread around on other picks (guys like Gonsalves possibly). Without the big first round bonus it might be hard to sign other guys later in the draft.

Willihammer · May 12, 2015

The Twins have come in ~2.5% under budget the last couple drafts. If that trend holds for the other picks, then with a 7.388m pool the Twins could afford to go ~554,000.00 over slot on the first pick. The only penalty would be the 75% tax on going 0-5% over their pool.

InfraRen · May 13, 2015

Another good example is the Dozier/Manaea haul the Royals got in '13. You think that wasn't worked out previous to the draft that Manaea would fall to #34?

Ugh, I was so mad that it was the Royals that got that 1-2 punch last year. And now they're GOOD, so those reinforcements will hurt.

By the way, just read this whole thread, thanks for the work you (and others) put in Jeremy.

Based on what I've read I'd be fine with Bregman, Allard or Funkhouser. Need to do more reading, but in a draft like this, it may be hard to judge anyone's picks until 5 years from now. I'm sure every team's boards are WAY different.

tobi0040 · May 13, 2015

With respect to Bregman, I don't see how the Twins can justify taking a college SS. I know the old saying of taking the best player, but we have a mix of young prospects and controlled young-ish veterans. So I personally would be surprised if we go that route.

Santana is only 24. Polanco is only 21 and is very under-rated. We used the 5th pick last year on Gordon, who is only 19. Often times SS move to 2B or 3B, but we have the same dynamic there. Plouffe is 28 and has a few more years of control. Sano is only 22 and a beast. And Dozier is 28 on a four year deal.

Steven Buhr · May 13, 2015

With respect to Bregman, I don't see how the Twins can justify taking a college SS. I know the old saying of taking the best player, but we have a mix of young prospects and controlled young-ish veterans. So I personally would be surprised if we go that route.

Santana is only 24. Polanco is only 21 and is very under-rated. We used the 5th pick last year on Gordon, who is only 19. Often times SS move to 2B or 3B, but we have the same dynamic there. Plouffe is 28 and has a few more years of control. Sano is only 22 and a beast. And Dozier is 28 on a four year deal.

Logic makes me tend to agree with this.

Then again, I try to keep in mind that, from the time they are acquired (regardless of how acquired), minor leaguers are basically just assets. You want the best asset you can get at the point you draft, regardless of position. Because you simply don't know for certain who will or won't become a MLB player and you want the guy who is most likely to be very good eventually. Then, even if it turns out you don't need that asset at the MLB level when he's ready to play there, he is still an asset who can be traded for someone that does fill a need at that time. If you end up with 4 MLB-caliber shortstops, somebody will give you MLB talent at another position in return for your excess of riches. That outcome is probably preferable to selecting the next guy lower on your draft board just because he isn't a SS.

Where I do see a potential problem is when it jams up the development process. Should a college SS drafted this year be appropriately slotted at high-A next summer? That would be the same level Gordon would likely be at. That's a problem if it means one or both don't get the innings they need at SS.

tobi0040 · May 13, 2015

Logic makes me tend to agree with this.

Then again, I try to keep in mind that, from the time they are acquired (regardless of how acquired), minor leaguers are basically just assets. You want the best asset you can get at the point you draft, regardless of position. Because you simply don't know for certain who will or won't become a MLB player and you want the guy who is most likely to be very good eventually. Then, even if it turns out you don't need that asset at the MLB level when he's ready to play there, he is still an asset who can be traded for someone that does fill a need at that time. If you end up with 4 MLB-caliber shortstops, somebody will give you MLB talent at another position in return for your excess of riches. That outcome is probably preferable to selecting the next guy lower on your draft board just because he isn't a SS.

Where I do see a potential problem is when it jams up the development process. Should a college SS drafted this year be appropriately slotted at high-A next summer? That would be the same level Gordon would likely be at. That's a problem if it means one or both don't get the innings they need at SS.

These are good points, I still see the Twins taking a pitcher. I just don't see another SS. Although one can make the case you made and do it.

gunnarthor · May 13, 2015

Did someone post this? Mayo's first mock draft has the Twins taking college pitcher Jon Harris

http://m.mlb.com/news/article/123796538/jonathan-mayo-has-dillon-tate-going-first-to-arizona-diamondbacks-in-mock-draft

Jeremy Nygaard · May 14, 2015

The first mock from PG. (Not sure what level of subscription, if any, you need to view.)

If you can't see, it goes: Rodgers, Tate, Swanson, Bregman, Tucker before the Twins take...

Funkhouser.

This particular mock has Allard going to the Red Sox (7), Cameron going to the White Sox (8) and Harris going to the Yankees (16). The rich get richer (potentially) with Aiken falling to the Dodgers (26) and Matuella to the Yankees (30). I see both of those guys as guys that might be teased with money to fall to the Diamondbacks/Astros - though obviously not Aiken to the Astros again.

Jeremy Nygaard · May 14, 2015

Another mock (from the Kiley-less Scout) which I wouldn't put as much stock into has Dillon Tate falling to the Twins at #6. Harris at 3. It's over a week old... and very interesting.

Mike Sixel · May 14, 2015

If Dillon Tate falls to the Twins, I will be flabbergasted, assuming there is no injury between now and then.

Sign In

BA on Draft

Recommended Posts

Archived

Member Statistics

Prospect News & Highlights

Recent News

Notes & Rumors

Recent Blog Entries

Recent Status Updates