2017 MLB draft thread

[Mike Sixel]

 

Is good player development luck? The Indians have a great rotation even though their recent high 1st round picks have skewed toward hitters. The Mets have churned out a bunch of great pitchers (when healthy), and they used one top pick on Harvey, but otherwise developed a couple of picks in the 30-70 range (Matz, Fulmer), converted a shortstop (deGrom), and targeted high-upside prospects in trades (Thor, Wheeler). 

 

I'm not remotely convinced that a top-5 pick has significantly better odds of turning into a great pitcher than the combined odds of 3 pitchers picked in the 30-100 range. 

 

Well, most teams aren't the Mets or White Sox, right? Perhaps they just know something that other teams don't? Perhaps they are lucky. Perhaps they have emphasized development of pitching more....how's their hitting? 

[Mike Sixel]

 

So if there is no clear cut #1 in this draft did they change it where if you can't sign your pick the Twins would get the #2 pick in the following years draft?

 

Terrible idea. You lose a year of development and knowledge, all for what? The TINY chance there is a better player next year? Every single person the internet that used to work in a front office says it would be a bad, bad, idea to do this on purpose.

[drjim]

 

Is good player development luck? The Indians have a great rotation even though their recent high 1st round picks have skewed toward hitters. The Mets have churned out a bunch of great pitchers (when healthy), and they used one top pick on Harvey, but otherwise developed a couple of picks in the 30-70 range (Matz, Fulmer), converted a shortstop (deGrom), and targeted high-upside prospects in trades (Thor, Wheeler). 

 

I'm not remotely convinced that a top-5 pick has significantly better odds of turning into a great pitcher than the combined odds of 3 pitchers picked in the 30-100 range. 

 

The other, unmentioned method of talent acquisition that has been quite successful for pitchers is acquiring them when they are in the minors or have had some early failures early in the bigs. There is some good fortune, but also some good scouting.

 

I really agree with the last statement you make. Best approach is volume.

[TheLeviathan]

You're drafting kids and hoping that when they become men they are good players.  There is bound to be a healthy share of luck in that equation.

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

High upside bats early, then projectable high school pitchers later.

 

To me, this is a flawed approach as well. You can find good arms late, I agree, but like anything else, the best ones happen in the 1st round. You have to go for those aces when you think there's a chance to do it. Simply taking a bat b/c it is lower risk can also significantly lower the reward, and when you need arms, it makes it far more likely that you still need arms at the end of the day... and getting arms via trade is going to cost you more than that high upside bat.

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

The other, unmentioned method of talent acquisition that has been quite successful for pitchers is acquiring them when they are in the minors or have had some early failures early in the bigs. There is some good fortune, but also some good scouting.

 

I really agree with the last statement you make. Best approach is volume.

 

 

and since we cannot trade that 1 overall pick....  if there is no clear cut BPA, I think you take the best pitcher.  Right now, that's Greene.  That will change I'm sure in a few months, but I wouldn't simply grab the bat b/c  it is lower risk.

[amjgt]

 

Terrible idea. You lose a year of development and knowledge, all for what? The TINY chance there is a better player next year? Every single person the internet that used to work in a front office says it would be a bad, bad, idea to do this on purpose.

 

Also, we would lose that entire amount of draft pool money. This is what got the Astros into trouble a couple years back. They had already gone overslot on some later picks, but when the 1st round pick Appel (right?) didn't sign, they lost all that money and could get the overslot guys signed (or did they have to pull back an offer?)

 

Details are fuzzy but the point still stands.

[Eris]

 

I agree, I prefer to take bats early.  I won't fault the Twins for taking Stewart if they thought he was a potential homerun.  I just wonder about that given who was in charge.

 

Stewart had football scholarship (QB) to Texas A&M.  He was considered an outstanding athlete in high school.   I think the challenge here is that it is extremely difficult to project high school pitchers.  There are multiple factors involved, including injuries, the need to develop additional pitches, and opposition batters with better plate discipline.  The ball is also different--wound tighter with the seems not as elevated.  Rob Kaminsky (now in the Indians organization) gave an interview with the local paper (Bergen Record) and pointed out that he never had trouble gripping the ball until he was in the minors.

[nicksaviking]

 

Stewart had football scholarship (QB) to Texas A&M.  He was considered an outstanding athlete in high school.   I think the challenge here is that it is extremely difficult to project high school pitchers.  There are multiple factors involved, including injuries, the need to develop additional pitches, and opposition batters with better plate discipline.  The ball is also different--wound tighter with the seems not as elevated.  Rob Kaminsky (now in the Indians organization) gave an interview with the local paper (Bergen Record) and pointed out that he never had trouble gripping the ball until he was in the minors.

 

I agree it is very difficult, but I'd bet teams will get better at it if they haven't already. Stewart was considered the #4 prospect so it's hard to fault the Twins for taking him.

 

From my understanding, Stewart doesn't have the velocity that was expected, and perhaps has actually even decreased since he was a teenager. Additionally his slider which was expected to be a plus pitch is barely usable to below average depending on the various reports now. I have to think some team is going to develop some kind of analytical model that is going to be able to better predict velocity changes, development of secondary pitches and perhaps even likelihood of injury based on age, body type, innings pitched and what kind of mechanical changes the team will require. It would be difficult surely but I seem to read about a dozen or so new technological advances more mind-blowing than that weekly.

[King]

Drafting for need is a very poor idea.

[amjgt]

 

Drafting for need is a very poor idea.

 

So, we're passing on the draft this year then?

 

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

Also, we would lose that entire amount of draft pool money. This is what got the Astros into trouble a couple years back. They had already gone overslot on some later picks, but when the 1st round pick Appel (right?) didn't sign, they lost all that money and could get the overslot guys signed (or did they have to pull back an offer?)

 

Details are fuzzy but the point still stands.

It wasn't appel.  It was Brady Aiken.  It was a bit messier than that.  They a dollar amount agreed on which they rescinded after medical evaluations.  They turned around and made offers to a few other HS guys, but they got into trouble when Aiken refused to sign.  They had to pull offers that were already on the table to a couple of their other HS draftees.  It was messy.

[Mike Sixel]

 

It wasn't appel.  It was Brady Aiken.  It was a bit messier than that.  They a dollar amount agreed on which they rescinded after medical evaluations.  They turned around and made offers to a few other HS guys, but they got into trouble when Aiken refused to sign.  They had to pull offers that were already on the table to a couple of their other HS draftees.  It was messy.

 

His point stands, if you don't sign your first round pick, you don't get the money for signing others....

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

His point stands, if you don't sign your first round pick, you don't get the money for signing others....

agreed.  I was correcting the details that he admitted to being fuzzy on... 

 

I think in the Aiken case (if memory serves me right) they pulled one of those offers after it had been signed.  I could be wrong there, but Houston didn't exactly operate ethically on this one.

[Mike Sixel]

 

agreed.  I was correcting the details that he admitted to being fuzzy on... 

 

I think in the Aiken case (if memory serves me right) they pulled one of those offers after it had been signed.  I could be wrong there, but Houston didn't exactly operate ethically on this one.

 

Hard to say, they pulled it after a medical, right? And, of course, he was then later hurt, making them lucky to be right.

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

Hard to say, they pulled it after a medical, right? And, of course, he was then later hurt, making them lucky to be right.

correct... but they pulled the other offers after Aiken's medical... and after he refused to sign.

[Mike Sixel]

 

correct... but they pulled the other offers after Aiken's medical... and after he refused to sign.

 

Don't get me wrong, they messed up....on ethical and baseball fronts, imo.

[gunnarthor]

Jacob Nix, the kid they pulled the deal on, filed a grievance with ML baseball.  The Astros settled it before it went to the arbitrator by giving the kid nearly his full offer.  Had they gone to arbitration and lost - which looked very possible - the arbitrator would have forced the Astros to honor the deal they gave Nix, which would have put them over the pool and they would have lost their first round pick the following year.  Which is why they gave him over a million dollars to go away.

[diehardtwinsfan]

I'm trying to figure out how that didn't count against their pool....  That's what I'd have done as the MLB commissioner...  Might make someone think twice about that. 

[gunnarthor]

 

I'm trying to figure out how that didn't count against their pool....  That's what I'd have done as the MLB commissioner...  Might make someone think twice about that. 

Apparently, there were a number of agents pushing for that but mlb didn't want to screw over owners. 

 

The money itself wasn't part of the bonus b/c it was part of the settlement process. 

[ALessKosherScott]

 

So if there is no clear cut #1 in this draft did they change it where if you can't sign your pick the Twins would get the #2 pick in the following years draft?

 

If there's no clear cut number 1, you do your research and grab the player you believe in most. For as good as Buxton is, I doubt Houston regrets Carlos Correa. Adrian Gonazles in 2000 is another example, sans the draft cap. You find the player you believe in most, and draft him-- regardless of cap savings.

[whosafraidofluigirussolo]

If there's no clear cut number 1, you do your research and grab the player you believe in most. For as good as Buxton is, I doubt Houston regrets Carlos Correa. Adrian Gonazles in 2000 is another example, sans the draft cap. You find the player you believe in most, and draft him-- regardless of cap savings.

 

Absolutely. A MLB organization, a large organization with lots of people and resources dedicated to scouting, will always have a player identified as belonging at the top of their board.

 

It probably was different when spending on the draft was a free-for-all, but at this point with draft pools regulated, no organization prioritizes need over BPA at the top of the draft. I'd think that few, if any, start prioritizing need until well after the first round.

 

[kab21]

 

If there's no clear cut number 1, you do your research and grab the player you believe in most. For as good as Buxton is, I doubt Houston regrets Carlos Correa. Adrian Gonazles in 2000 is another example, sans the draft cap. You find the player you believe in most, and draft him-- regardless of cap savings.

But if you really believe in one player more than another then that would make them a #1 on your list. Maybe not a true no doubter that come along every 5+ years but still a #1.

 

I can see a situation where there are 3-4 players in this draft that are in virtual ties and it does make sense to pick the one that signs for less if the Twins can grab a second top 10 talent with the supplemental pick or the 2nd rd pick.

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

But if you really believe in one player more than another then that would make them a #1 on your list. Maybe not a true no doubter that come along every 5+ years but still a #1.

 

I can see a situation where there are 3-4 players in this draft that are in virtual ties and it does make sense to pick the one that signs for less if the Twins can grab a second top 10 talent with the supplemental pick or the 2nd rd pick.

Agree there.  With the top pick, we can get more talent throughout the draft by being smart about which of those 3/4 guys we pick. I personally hope for a Harper type, but if not, then this is probably how I play it.

[Seth Stohs]

Always draft the player that your scouting department feels will be the best player in the long term... whether that player is a pitcher or hitter, college or high school... 

[nicksaviking]

 

Always draft the player that your scouting department feels will be the best player in the long term... whether that player is a pitcher or hitter, college or high school... 

 

How about we take the player that the Dodgers scouting department feels will be the best player? They seem to have all the prospects we want already.

[Mike Sixel]

 

Always draft the player that your scouting department feels will be the best player in the long term... whether that player is a pitcher or hitter, college or high school... 

 

So, never take a catcher?

 

People say this all the time, but it is almost always a SS or CF or SP that is the BPA in every round that matters. 

 

Context does matter, it does. Round 1, sure, take BPA. Maybe round 2. But after that, you have to have a certain number of OFs and SPs and Cs and others in your system. 

[Seth Stohs]

 

So, never take a catcher?

 

People say this all the time, but it is almost always a SS or CF or SP that is the BPA in every round that matters. 

 

Context does matter, it does. Round 1, sure, take BPA. Maybe round 2. But after that, you have to have a certain number of OFs and SPs and Cs and others in your system. 

 

 

Yeah, I was primarily talking about the first several rounds. The Twins have done great for years at signing their Top 12-15 picks. Drafting for organizational need (position wise) shouldn't happen until Round 18-20 or so. And even then, the players you draft should have some sort of develop-able tool.

[Mike Sixel]

 

Yeah, I was primarily talking about the first several rounds. The Twins have done great for years at signing their Top 12-15 picks. Drafting for organizational need (position wise) shouldn't happen until Round 18-20 or so. And even then, the players you draft should have some sort of develop-able tool.

 

 

got it, we just crossed wires there some. thought I'd go more like rounds 5+ for org need to some degree.

[diehardtwinsfan]

wow.. mocks are up already... Not sure I like our pick here unless Kendell is going to play good CF and hit like Kris Bryant.

 

http://www.mymlbdraft.com/MLB-Mock-Draft

 

This one has us taking one of his teammates...

 

http://www.fueledbysports.com/2017-mlb-mock-draft/