2017 MLB draft thread

[biggentleben]

 

I don't care what O'Leary says about pitching. He is even worse when it comes to analyzing hitters. I have my own personal opinions about pitching mechanics, but it varies from pitcher to pitcher because of body type. I mostly look for how well the upper and lower bodies are synchronized, and ignore whether something looks high effort or not. Some pitchers look smooth with their delivery, but have flaws that are hard for a lot of people to pick up. Others are high effort, but other than that they have a fundamentally sound delivery.

 

I'm in a similar boat. I actually see Hans Crouse in that situation. He reminds me of Alex Wood a lot in that it looks absolutely horrible in totality, but if you look at the specific points of load and release, he has his legs under him well and his body in a good position for torque at those positions as odd as it may be in viewing the movements to get to those points.

[Willihammer]

 

O'Leary is a guy who saw the parental worry about Tommy John, started making a few GIFs, and sold his "program" to tons of concerned parents around the nation. He landed a few big-name guys, like Matt Harvey (seriously, read his excuses on why Matt is injured or not performing well, all begins with when he stopped working with O'Leary, according to O'Leary, that is), and really became the first real big user of the "inverted W" term. Of course, that has been incredibly debunked, but he still is out there schilling the same stuff.

Has the inverted W stuff been debunked though?

[drjim]

Looking like the Twins are leaning towards passing on Greene. 

 

http://www.1500espn.com/twins-2/2017/05/report-twins-undecided-leaning-toward-passing-prep-star-hunter-greene-draft/

 

Take Wright!

[Mike Sixel]

 

Has the inverted W stuff been debunked though?

 

Yes, it is all anecdotal. Just like the "don't increase innings by more than 20%" thing is. When you actually run the numbers, and don't just look for cases that confirm your hypothesis, these things don't hold up.

[drjim]

Yes, it is all anecdotal. Just like the "don't increase innings by more than 20%" thing is. When you actually run the numbers, and don't just look for cases that confirm your hypothesis, these things don't hold up.

One of these is not like the other.

[d-mac]

 

  If the Twins take anyone but McKay it's putting a good amount of faith in your pitching development department to get the most out of the prospect.

 

Which, I have none. 

[d-mac]

 

I agree. I still think the Twins should be shooting higher than an at best #2 pitcher with the top overall pick in the draft. Whoever is picked I will be excited to see develop.

 

In a perfect world, yes. I just don't see "ace" potential anywhere in this draft. 

[Mike Sixel]

 

In a perfect world, yes. I just don't see "ace" potential anywhere in this draft. 

 

Do you see a Machado or Harper or Sano? I don't know if there is an elite, sure fire, hitter either (well, maybe some 1B types).

[Bob Sacamento]

 

I'm really baffled why Adell isn't in the conversation for 1-1.  

 

Kid has 22 home runs, most in the country. He has 7 strikeouts IIRC.

 

Buxton ran a 6.57 60-yard dash. Adell runs a 6.60.

 

Clocked at 97.

 

Won the Perfect Game HR derby last year. Multiple dingers in the 100+ exit velo. Hit one 448 feet (a record).

 

???

 

Why isn't this guy on the front page of SI?

From what I recall the competition in his area isn't the best, that's why there was a big emphasis on his showcase play against better talent.  

[nicksaviking]

 

In a perfect world, yes. I just don't see "ace" potential anywhere in this draft. 

 

I'd think guys who throw 95+ typically have potential to be an ace. Not that they necessarily will become one but there is potential.

[d-mac]

 

Do you see a Machado or Harper or Sano? I don't know if there is an elite, sure fire, hitter either (well, maybe some 1B types).

 

No I don't. I just don't see a lot of upside in the top part of this draft, either pitcher or hitter. Which figures, of course it happens to be the draft when we pick first. Which is why I like McKay. I think the risk/reward is slanted towards taking a high floor type in this draft and McKay has a high floor as either a hitter or pitcher- or- finding an underslot guy and spread that money around to 35 and 37. 

 

 

*Edited for grammar*

[d-mac]

 

I'd think guys who throw 95+ typically have potential to be an ace. Not that they necessarily will become one but there is potential.

 

Really, Greene of the 30-40 grade breaking ball and non-existent change up is an ace? I see him as either getting moved to SS at some point or ending up as a reliever. Or do you mean Wright? The Jekyll/Hyde type pitcher with command/control problems? His stuff may be better than most pitchers in this draft, but that's not exactly a high bar to clear. I think most years he would go in the 7-15 range. Sure, he's been dominant the past few starts but besides the usual SSS concerns, I'd like to see a better body of work coming from a top college pitcher before I'm comfortable taking him 1-1.

[mlhouse]

I still cannot see passing on Green.  I look at the college pitchers at the top of the draft and I just don't get the excitement.  Are they any better than Mark Appel or Jon Gray?  I get the excitment over a two way player in McKay, but I think he is going to project as a hitter and not a pitcher in professional ball.

 

I get the risk in taking a HS right hander, but of course high school LEFT handers have been selected first overall!  

 

I take Green and move him as quickly through the minors as possible.  He has that Dwight Gooden look to me and he should be in the major leagues by the time he is 21.

[Bob Sacamento]

 

Really, Greene of the 30-40 grade breaking ball and non-existent change up is an ace? I see him as either getting moved to SS at some point or ending up as a reliever. Or do you mean Wright? The Jekyll/Hyde type pitcher with command/control problems? His stuff may be better than most pitchers in this draft, but that's not exactly a high bar to clear. I think most years he would go in the 7-15 range. Sure, he's been dominant the past few starts but besides the usual SSS concerns, I'd like to see a better body of work coming from a top college pitcher before I'm comfortable taking him 1-1.

The question is if you believe in the projectability in Greene like many scouts do.  The wear and tear is very low on his arm at this point as he's not been over exposed or abused on the showcase circuits.  My worry is always there with any kid who throws so hard, so young no matter how nice their mechanics are.  Then there is the aspect that Greene is only 17 and won't even be 18 til August, so he's one of the younger prospects in the draft.  Add in the aspect that he spends a good amount of time in the middle infield and hitting, as a professional that time will all be concentrated into the pitching front.  With Hunter there is alot to dream on but whether he actually hits that projection as a frontline starter is very risky.  

[Bob Sacamento]

 

 I get the excitment over a two way player in McKay, but I think he is going to project as a hitter and not a pitcher in professional ball.

 

I take Green and move him as quickly through the minors as possible.  He has that Dwight Gooden look to me and he should be in the major leagues by the time he is 21.

I'm actually in the same boat as you, I think McKay profiles better as an impact hitter, one scouting director is on record saying he has the offensive toolset of a 200M free agent hitter. It's a bat that could put up .280-.300 with plus plate discipline and 20-25+ homers. But that ability to be an enticing workhorse lefty who could rise to big leagues quicker than anyone else in the draft ain't bad either. He's the first player since Dave Winfield in 1973 who would go in Top 5 as a SP and as hitter.

 

As for the Greene- Doc comp, I don't see it, Dwight had a NASTY hammer that he could throw out there and make hitters look silly.  It was so nasty it had the nickname "Lord Charles" instead of "Uncle Charlie" which is the usually moniker of a good curveball.  If you want to comp Greene, a right handed Aroldis Chapman is more apt than Doc Gooden.

 

 

No I don't. I just don't see a lot of upside in the top part of this draft, either pitcher or hitter. Which figures, of course it happens to be the draft when we pick first. Which is why I like McKay. I think the risk/reward is slanted towards taking a high floor type in this draft and McKay has a high floor as either a hitter or pitcher- or- finding an underslot guy and spread that money around to 35 and 37. 

Gun to my head, at this moment I probably take McKay, he's not going to sink you on the pick, you will get a return on your investment and soon.  Are there guys out there that could give you a bigger return on your investment? Yeah, probably but they are riskier and will take longer to recoup that investment.  This being Falvey and Levine's first draft, I really don't see them going for a major gamble on their first roll of the dice but I could be wrong.

[Mike Sixel]

 

I'm actually in the same boat as you, I think McKay profiles better as an impact hitter, one scouting director is on record saying he has the offensive toolset of a 200M free agent hitter. It's a bat that could put up .280-.300 with plus plate discipline and 20-25+ homers. But that ability to be an enticing workhorse lefty who could rise to big leagues quicker than anyone else in the draft ain't bad either. He's the first player since Dave Winfield in 1973 who would go in Top 5 as a SP and as hitter.

 

As for the Greene- Doc comp, I don't see it, Dwight had a NASTY hammer that he could throw out there and make hitters look silly.  It was so nasty it had the nickname "Lord Charles" instead of "Uncle Charlie" which is the usually moniker of a good curveball.  If you want to comp Greene, a right handed Aroldis Chapman is more apt than Doc Gooden.

 

 

Gun to my head, at this moment I probably take McKay, he's not going to sink you on the pick, you will get a return on your investment and soon.  Are there guys out there that could give you a bigger return on your investment? Yeah, probably but they are riskier and will take longer to recoup that investment.  This being Falvey and Levine's first draft, I really don't see them going for a major gamble on their first roll of the dice but I could be wrong.

 

why not Wright? Other than McKay's safety as a hitter/pitcher?

[Bob Sacamento]

 

why not Wright? Other than McKay's safety as a hitter/pitcher?

That's pretty much it, McKay's safety is very enticing then go gamble with picks 35 and 37.  Of the two, Wright has the higher ceiling, and has frontline starter stuff (still won't say ace potential), his control and command is just so inconsistent.  Some nights he looks like a budding superstar, other nights well not so much.  

 

The name that keeps getting lost is Bukauskas, kid has the best secondary pitch in the draft (slider), a plus fastball, he gets dinged for his lesser size than a McKay or Wright.  Comps to Sonny Gray/Lance McCullers don't seem  that far off.

[AZTwin]

I don't like McKay as a pitcher. You got to be able to throw greater than 90 mph to be a 1st overall pick. Sorry but he's not going to be a great pitcher in the big leagues. Kyle Wright would be a better pick if you want a pitcher. I wouldn't be opposed to drafting a high school player that goes underslot and we go overslept with the next two picks to better spread our risk around. There's no sure fire prospect at the top to not try limiting risk. Picking a low ceiling guy is not limiting risk, it's just dumb.

[nicksaviking]

 

Really, Greene of the 30-40 grade breaking ball and non-existent change up is an ace? I see him as either getting moved to SS at some point or ending up as a reliever. Or do you mean Wright? The Jekyll/Hyde type pitcher with command/control problems? His stuff may be better than most pitchers in this draft, but that's not exactly a high bar to clear. I think most years he would go in the 7-15 range. Sure, he's been dominant the past few starts but besides the usual SSS concerns, I'd like to see a better body of work coming from a top college pitcher before I'm comfortable taking him 1-1.

 

Greene, Wright, Gore, Baz and Bukauskas all throw hard enough that their velocity will make an impact. As I said, no one necessarily will become an ace, but guys with plus velocity do tend to have the potential to become one; after all, it's possible to learn secondary pitches and control, it's next to impossible to learn velocity.

 

I'm struggling to understand why everyone thinks McKay is so safe. Has there ever been a safe guy who throws 90-93 or 88-90 as the recent reports say? There's nothing safe about that, he has zero margin for error unlike guys with plus velocity.

 

Also, the draft guys are watching these prospects through their personal historical vision, baseball has changed significantly in the past two years though. It's all about HR and strikeouts now. The guys who can command the zone but give up contact are not thriving much these days.

[Bob Sacamento]

 

I'm struggling to understand why everyone thinks McKay is so safe. Has there ever been a safe guy who throws 90-93 or 88-90 as the recent reports say? There's nothing safe about that, he has zero margin for error unlike guys with plus velocity.

 

Also, the draft guys are watching these prospects through their personal historical vision, baseball has changed significantly in the past two years though. It's all about HR and strikeouts now. The guys who can command the zone but give up contact are not thriving much these days.

What? Soft tossing command guys are cleaning up this year because of the shift of the hitters trying to create more loft/launch angle to hit homeruns.

 

As for McKay, the safety on the mound is that his command and control are on a different playing field than the rest of the college pitchers.  Yes the stuff is not that of a Bukauskas or Wright but it all plays up because he can control and command where it's going.  On the mound, he gets the Greg Swindell/Cliff Lee comp.  The other safety is that his bat is comped to Adrian Gonzalez

[Oldgoat_MN]

Here are the pitchers I see the Twins looking at and my perceived reservations with each:
Greene – not an impressive array of secondary pitches. High school issues (potential long development curve to get to MLB, uncertainty as arm matures) apply.
McKay – Pretty much no one is saying he will ever be an ‘ace’. Some say #2, some say #3.
Wright – command and control issues.
Gore – High school issues apply.
Bukauskas – cannot possibly make it, as he is no taller than Johan Santana.

 

Now I have not followed this as carefully as many of you, but I am of the mind that Gore or Bukauskas would be fine. Except that no one, anywhere, is saying either is going to be drafted #1 or #2.
I guess what I’m saying is that I really appreciate all the information and opinions you all are sharing. While it reaches absolutely nothing that looks like a conclusion, it has been really fun.

 

Thank you!

[Hrbowski]

I don't like the Cliff Lee comp for McKay at all. I asked one AL executive if Jon Lester was the best comp for McKay, and he said that made sense. Bukauskas is my personal favorite, but his lack of physicality make scouts wary of him. I really like Mac Gore, and I have heard from scouts that he is the only pitcher who is better than Sam Carlson at this point, with the other big names being referred to as throwers.

[Bob Sacamento]

 

I don't like the Cliff Lee comp for McKay at all. I asked one AL executive if Jon Lester was the best comp for McKay, and he said that made sense. Bukauskas is my personal favorite, but his lack of physicality make scouts wary of him. I really like Mac Gore, and I have heard from scouts that he is the only pitcher who is better than Sam Carlson at this point, with the other big names being referred to as throwers.

If McKay is anything close to a Lester or Lee comp, the Twins should jump on it and not think twice.  I'm with you on JB, one of my favorites to watch but the lack of size scares some off, but it also scared off teams on Marcus Stroman, Sonny Gray and Lance McCullers as they were all suppose to be RP too due to size.

 

As for Mac Gore, I'm not a fan of the mechanics even if he does repeat it but the stuff and command are quite polished for a HSer.  I'm just always weary of guys with huge helium later in the draft process.  

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

I don't like McKay as a pitcher. You got to be able to throw greater than 90 mph to be a 1st overall pick. Sorry but he's not going to be a great pitcher in the big leagues. Kyle Wright would be a better pick if you want a pitcher. I wouldn't be opposed to drafting a high school player that goes underslot and we go overslept with the next two picks to better spread our risk around. There's no sure fire prospect at the top to not try limiting risk. Picking a low ceiling guy is not limiting risk, it's just dumb.

 

Well, that's good, because he does throw over 90

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

Greene, Wright, Gore, Baz and Bukauskas all throw hard enough that their velocity will make an impact. As I said, no one necessarily will become an ace, but guys with plus velocity do tend to have the potential to become one; after all, it's possible to learn secondary pitches and control, it's next to impossible to learn velocity.

 

I'm struggling to understand why everyone thinks McKay is so safe. Has there ever been a safe guy who throws 90-93 or 88-90 as the recent reports say? There's nothing safe about that, he has zero margin for error unlike guys with plus velocity.

 

Also, the draft guys are watching these prospects through their personal historical vision, baseball has changed significantly in the past two years though. It's all about HR and strikeouts now. The guys who can command the zone but give up contact are not thriving much these days.

 

One start Nick... he's had one start where he struggled to top 90.  Let's put that in perspective... if we see that for the rest of his starts, the real question is whether he's hurt or dealing with dead arm, both of which would certainly give rational reason to question the 1-1 pick... 

[Mike Sixel]

mike sixel
3:26 Odds MN goes for an under slot guy, since they also have picks 35 and 37, IIRC?

 

Eric A Longenhagen
3:30 Small. Bonus amounts up top are more uniform and clubs' ability to save pool money is limited as a result. I think the only clubs for which an under slot deal might make sense are Oakland And Cincinnati. The Reds because they pick for the second time before everyone else at the top of the draft except for Tampa but they have the $1mil difference in slot value vs Tampa up top. Oakland because, after what I think is a clear top 5 in the class, they might have several similarly graded players with whom to leverage negotiations.
3:31 And then they pick at 33 again, right after CIN.
But in general I think we see less of the under slot stuff with the new rules.

[Willihammer]

 

One start Nick... he's had one start where he struggled to top 90.  Let's put that in perspective... if we see that for the rest of his starts, the real question is whether he's hurt or dealing with dead arm, both of which would certainly give rational reason to question the 1-1 pick... 

Its something to monitor though. Velo loss is usually a bad sign. That said, the cutter development adds a wrinkle (no pun intended). There's a school of thought that pitchers who get used to coming off the side of the ball (as throwing a cutter) will lose velo on their four seemer because they have gotten out of the habbit of staying behind the ball. Dan Duquette forbids cutters for this reason.

 

I'll be curious to see if his cutter usage changes the rest of the year. Someone maybe could counsel him against it.

[biggentleben]

 

Has the inverted W stuff been debunked though?

 

Yes, significantly. There's not any statistical proof that anyone with an "inverted W" is more likely to have an injury, let alone surgery, than someone who does not have such a position. When that was presented, O'Leary doubled down by basically showing that every pitcher ever has had an inverted W at some point in their delivery, but that pretty much ruins his entire argument.

[biggentleben]

 

From what I recall the competition in his area isn't the best, that's why there was a big emphasis on his showcase play against better talent.  

 

Though I do think it was interesting that he got tagged with swing and miss issues when he struck out at roughly 15-20% of his showcase PAs. He just had so rarely struck out previous (including the previous summer when he was part of Perfect Game All-Star events between his sophomore and junior years) that it surprised those watching, leading to the "strikeout prone" evaluation.

[biggentleben]

 

I don't like the Cliff Lee comp for McKay at all. I asked one AL executive if Jon Lester was the best comp for McKay, and he said that made sense. Bukauskas is my personal favorite, but his lack of physicality make scouts wary of him. I really like Mac Gore, and I have heard from scouts that he is the only pitcher who is better than Sam Carlson at this point, with the other big names being referred to as throwers.

 

When he had more pronounced cutter usage recently, I thought there was a better Lester top end upside than Lee, so that makes sense.

 

On the Carlson/Gore bit, I hear a ton from folks about how much their team loves both. I'd be surprised if both get out of the top 10, but I've yet to see a mock (outside of one I did right away) with both in the top 10.