436 replies to this topic

[SportsGuy]

https://twitter.com/...5662953472?s=21


https://twitter.com/...8604152833?s=21

[dude]

https://twitter.com/...5662953472?s=21

 

My thought before the draft yesterday is that Boras could want to make an argument that Martin was actually the top pick and they need to break the bonus record at 8.2M and then have Tork break it again at 8.3M.

[Nigel Tufnel]

Here was Law's write-up on Kjerstad in his top 100 prospects article, btw.

 

11. Heston Kjerstad, OF, Arkansas, Age: 21

Kjerstad came out strong to start the year in non-conference play and showed scouts enough to push himself into the top half of the first round and into the second tier of college position players after the big two of Torkelson and Martin. He has outstanding hand acceleration, so while his hands are a little loose and busy at the start of his swing, he can get the bat head to the zone on time and still produce hard contact. That said, Kjerstad did strike out 65 times last spring, 22 percent of the time, the seventh-highest total among SEC hitters. He never got to start conference play this year to show if he could boost that contact rate, so questions about his hand path remain. He’s played right field and first base for the Hogs, with right his most likely position, where he should be an average defender. With 37 homers in 150 games for Arkansas, and the bat speed to make hard contact, Kjerstad can show 60+ raw power and has 25-30 homer potential if he makes enough contact to get to it.

 

ttps://theathletic.com/1850996/2020/06/06/keith-laws-big-board-ranking-the-2020-mlb-drafts-top-100-prospects/

[Slidemaster]

That MLB article you linked above... ultimately they are Pipeline. Day of the draft, they had him 10th.
You are showing a link from a April 27th Mock. Dated.

The first CBS link you show is from June 2nd. RJ Anderson had him 17th. Link fine.

The second CBS link you showed is from April 15th. Axisa's mock there had him 15th. Okay, but again, dated.

I'm not familiar with Mason McRae / Prospects 365... but the May 8th mock has him 15th.

I think the pre-draft rankings below (day of) give a better glimpse into how he was regarded at the time of the draft.




Heston Kjerstad pre-draft rankings:
No. 7 - FanGraphs
No. 9 - ESPN
No. 10 - MLBPipeline
No. 11 - The Athletic
No. 13 - Baseball America

I don't see why some of those older mock drafts wouldn't still be relevant. It isn't as though they played lots of baseball between then and now.

Regardless, I said he was a top 15 pick earlier, and that's exactly what even the last mock drafts showed for the most part. Now, with them showing a total unwillingness to draft quality above slot players later, it looks like even worse of a pick.

[Slidemaster]

Are you really quoting mocks from 1-2 months ago? Seriously?

And btw, Mayo had him 7th in the last mock before last night.

You asked for mock drafts, and I showed them to you. Of course, you found a way to pretend as though they don't mean anything, while acting like a pompous ass in the process.

Incidentally, as I said before, I said that many mock drafts had him going between 10 and 15. They did.

[SportsGuy]

You asked for mock drafts, and I showed them to you. Of course, you found a way to pretend as though they don't mean anything, while acting like a pompous ass in the process.

Incidentally, as I said before, I said that many mock drafts had him going between 10 and 15. They did.

Great..I thought you were using something relevant. My mistake for giving you that credit.

[BSLChrisStoner]

I don't see why some of those older mock drafts wouldn't still be relevant. It isn't as though they played lots of baseball between then and now.

Regardless, I said he was a top 15 pick earlier, and that's exactly what even the last mock drafts showed for the most part. Now, with them showing a total unwillingness to draft quality above slot players later, it looks like even worse of a pick.

Ideally you'd be looking for less Mocks and more lists of ranked talented...   and while there wasn't additional game-play, Mocks from sometime ago aren't particularly valuable (aside from seeing how the perception at that time). 

Still, the positions you and Rob and I have in-terms of where Kjerstad was generally perceived prior to last night... aren't that far off. 

 

[Slidemaster]

Great..I thought you were using something relevant. My mistake for giving you that credit.

My God, you are so far up your own ass that you can taste what you ate for lunch yesterday.

I've never seen anyone in my life so arbitrarily declare their viewpoint to be superior to someone else's based on literally nothing.

[You Play to Win the Game]

My God, you are so far up your own ass that you can taste what you ate for lunch yesterday.

I've never seen anyone in my life so arbitrarily declare their viewpoint to be superior to someone else's based on literally nothing.

Sounds like he should get his digestive system checked out, no?

[SportsGuy]

My God, you are so far up your own ass that you can taste what you ate for lunch yesterday.
I've never seen anyone in my life so arbitrarily declare their viewpoint to be superior to someone else's based on literally nothing.

The idea that you are trying to prove your point by quoting mocks that old shows you are clueless. Do you show mocks that are 2 months to show an NFL pick is good or bad? Of course not. Why would this be any different?

They are meaningless especially since one of the guys you are quoting, Mayo, had moved up into the top 10 just last night.

You are sitting trying to argue about something you know nothing about and yet I’m the one saying my viewpoint is superior? Lol

You are clueless man.

[Slidemaster]

The idea that you are trying to prove your point by quoting mocks that old shows you are clueless. Do you show mocks that are 2 months to show an NFL pick is good or bad? Of course not. Why would this be any different?

They are meaningless especially since one of the guys you are quoting, Mayo, had moved up into the top 10 just last night.

You are sitting trying to argue about something you know nothing about and yet I’m the one saying my viewpoint is superior? Lol

You are clueless man.

First of all, there were mocks from April May and June. I showed three different months of Mocks.

Secondly, you know as well as I do that plenty of mocks had him between 10 and 15. Chris showed three of them in his last post.

Thirdly, we all know that analysts like to shake things up the more they do mock drafts. They explore what might happen if someone goes where they don't expect. There has been no additional baseball to sway anybody's opinion about who these guys are since the first mock I posted. Calling them worthless is a worthless opinion.

Finally, you challenged me to show you any mock draft that showed him going between 10 and 20. You got them. Even if all you want to do is look at the one from June, they were there. And, I'm sure there are more.

At this point, you're doing what you do best, which is arguing for the sake of arguing and being obnoxious as you do it.

[SportsGuy]

I did ask you for mocks..I assumed you understood to show me ones that were relevant.

1-2 month old ones aren’t relevant.

And you are the one arguing. You are kind of alone on Kjerstad for the most part. We have shown you several things to show that he isn’t some reach and isn’t some terrible pick.

You are making statements about him with nothing to back it up. You were calling him a platoon guy with no split stats. You were saying he has a bad hit tool when plenty of baseball people are saying he does.

When I ask you for some proof or basis for that, you mention mocks (which mean nothing) and then produce ones that are old and irrelevant.

Yet I’m the one arguing? Got it.

[Slidemaster]

I did ask you for mocks..I assumed you understood to show me ones that were relevant.

1-2 month old ones aren’t relevant.

Right. Because so much new baseball has been played and scouting has been done since then.

You got mocks from all 3 months, plus rankings/mocks posted by Chris as of yesterday.

What a weak-ass argument.

[SportsGuy]

Right. Because so much new baseball has been played and scouting has been done since then.
You got mocks from all 3 months, plus rankings/mocks posted by Chris as of yesterday.
What a weak-ass argument.

How much football is played between Late december/early Jan and Late April, yet the NFL boards change like crazy.

[BSLChrisStoner]

Guys, your positions (on how Kjerstad was perceived consensus wise entering last night) aren't that far off really. No real reason to go back and forth here.

[SportsGuy]

Guys, your positions (on how Kjerstad was perceived consensus wise entering last night) aren't that far off really. No real reason to go back and forth here.

Actually that’s not true.

He is trying to argue that the Os reached for Kjerstad and he is basing that off of mocks and other incomplete info.

I’m not doing that at all.

It’s a pretty big difference actually.

[BSLChrisStoner]

Actually that’s not true.

He is trying to argue that the Os reached for Kjerstad and he is basing that off of mocks and other incomplete info.

I’m not doing that at all.

It’s a pretty big difference actually.

He's saying - with a bit of hyperbole - that Kjerstad was a Top 10-20 talent by most going into last night. 
You are saying - I believe - he was closer to that 7-10 range. 

It's a difference, but ultimately it's really not much. 

Somewhere between 7 and 15 seems to be the general consensus of how he was perceived by most. 

And ultimately for the Orioles... they were looking at him in a group of Martin, Gonzales, Veen, and Hassell.  Or maybe instead of Hassell they had one of Lacy / Meyer / Hancock 5th on their board.  

And I think you both agree with that.

[TwentyThirtyFive]

Sounds like he should get his digestive system checked out, no?

You and Rob make up yet? I haven't checked the politics thread in awhile

[Mackus]

He's saying - with a bit of hyperbole - that Kjerstad was a Top 10-20 talent by most going into last night.
You are saying - I believe - he was closer to that 7-10 range.

It's a difference, but ultimately it's really not much.

Somewhere between 7 and 15 seems to be the general consensus of how he was perceived by most.

And ultimately for the Orioles... they were looking at him in a group of Martin, Gonzales, Veen, and Hassell. Or maybe instead of Hassell they had one of Lacy / Meyer / Hancock 5th on their board.

And I think you both agree with that.

I think there is almost no discernible difference most years (and it's certainly true this year without the bulk of the season) between being a back-end top-ten talent versus being a mid-teens talent.

[dude]

 We have shown you several things to show that he isn’t much of a reach and isn’t some terrible pick.

 

I would change this sentence above.