574 replies to this topic

[TwentyThirtyFive]

You know, it's kinda funny, cause now that I say that, I think I remember somewhere in early COVID when they were figuring out how they were going to do the draft saying that it could benefit a team to take a player they aren't going to sign and taking the extra pick the following year when you could get back to more normal scouting and when more players would be in the pool as result of that shortened draft last year.

Hindsight I think it'd have been a fantastic haul to get like Lawler and Leiter this year versus Heston and Leiter...although you could probably break down the FULL underslot haul last year versus the full haul this year and I might disagree. But I still really want one of those big pitchers this year. Just feel like it would really fit perfectly with where our team is, with that middle infield depth they've built up, and the OF depth they have going on. If they could extend Trey and Means and then all these players come together, I think it could be a REAL legit contending team. And completely built in house.

It would be 3 and 6 had we not signed Kjerstad. Its certainly intriguing to consider doing that if you dont like your options in a particular year but its also shady. Not fair to the kid you draft unless of course they call your bluff and sign for the way underslot that you offer. Didnt the Astros do that one year. Fail to sign a top pick?

[Mackus]

It would be 3 and 6 had we not signed Kjerstad. Its certainly intriguing to consider doing that if you dont like your options in a particular year but its also shady. Not fair to the kid you draft unless of course they call your bluff and sign for the way underslot that you offer. Didnt the Astros do that one year. Fail to sign a top pick?

 

Aiken.  Their post-draft medical exam threw up a red flag.  They offered him the lowest possible bonus to still get a comp pick.  He turned it down.

[makoman]

I'm mostly with Mackus here, but really it depends on their board. 

 

If they are sitting there on the clock and there is a no doubt BPA left on their board, they should probably just take him. 

 

If they are sitting there and they like three guys pretty much the same, but on the consensus board they are like 4, 5, 11, I am happy if they take the 11 who will likely sign for less and use that money somewhere else. Even if guys don't drop the way they used to, you can always use extra money somewhere (Gunnar signed for about $500k over slot for example).

 

I don't necessarily call this "getting cute." I call this trusting your board and getting someone you think is equivalent plus getting extra draft capital for nothing. Like in the NFL if you have 5 guys as equal on your board you can just trade back a few spots and be happy with whoever is left. It's more getting cute if you start taking guys you like a lot less hoping to make it up later (like last year?), but that can also work out.

 

Of course none of us will know their board so it's impossible for us to really evaluate post draft. Some of you pay attention a lot more, but I'm not going to pretend I know enough about any of these kids to know what I think they should do.

[StephenCLoftus]

BSL: 2021 MLB Draft: Consensus is Hard to Find

https://baltimorespo...s-hard-to-find/

[BSLSteveBirrer]

I am typically not a fan of the underslot/overslot game, especially when you have a really high draft pick. Just freaking take the best player available that fits your needs (the O's have no business for example drafting a C with a first round pick). Now that said this year, with all the variables that have been in play this may be a year where it might make sense. Might.

[makoman]

I am typically not a fan of the underslot/overslot game, especially when you have a really high draft pick. Just freaking take the best player available that fits your needs (the O's have no business for example drafting a C with a first round pick). Now that said this year, with all the variables that have been in play this may be a year where it might make sense. Might.

Yes, it would have been a terrible move drafting Posey given they already had Wieters. 

 

If the catcher is obviously the BPA to them I'm fine if they take him. If it's mostly even then other considerations can matter.

[BSLSteveBirrer]

Yes, it would have been a terrible move drafting Posey given they already had Wieters. 

 

If the catcher is obviously the BPA to them I'm fine if they take him. If it's mostly even then other considerations can matter.

Maybe I should have been clearer. It makes no sense for the O's to draft a C this year even though there is a highly rated one. I thought it was obvious when I said "that meets your needs". 

[BaltBird 24]

Maybe I should have been clearer. It makes no sense for the O's to draft a C this year even though there is a highly rated one. I thought it was obvious when I said "that meets your needs".

Get the most talented player and worry about the rest later. There's a good chance Rutchsman never lives up to the hype.

[Mackus]

Maybe I should have been clearer. It makes no sense for the O's to draft a C this year even though there is a highly rated one. I thought it was obvious when I said "that meets your needs". 

 

He's saying "need" should not be a factor for MLB drafts, and gave a very pertinent example.  Last time we had the best catching prospect and top-5 overall prospect in baseball, we could've drafted another catcher a year later but chose not to.  The guy we passed on is a borderline HOF.   The guy we had turned out good but not great.  I'm certain we could've made both Wieters and Posey work out just fine.

 

Caveat is I'm not sure if Posey was considered the BPA at the time.  Matusz was a stud draft prospect and getting him at #4 was a great selection, just didn't work out.  The major debate that year amongst fans following the draft was Matusz vs Smoak.  Posey really wasn't being advocated for very strongly by many fans that I recall.  He did get a really big bonus though, so maybe he was more strongly under consideration than I remember.

[BaltBird 24]

Yeah, Smoak was the one everyone was going crazy for. Stud bat, grew up with Wieters, I don't recall us having any decent 1B prospects.

Matusz was a stud prospect, too, though.

[Mike B]

Maybe I should have been clearer. It makes no sense for the O's to draft a C this year even though there is a highly rated one. I thought it was obvious when I said "that meets your needs". 

Good catchers are like QB's.  There are not enough to go around.  If the Orioles were to take Henry Davis and he and Rutschman, both blaze their way to the majors, they both can play daily or one could be traded for a big return.  Good catchers who can hit are rare, and a very valuable.

[makoman]

He's saying "need" is should not be a factor for MLB drafts, and gave a very pertinent example.  Last time we had the best catching prospect and top-5 overall prospect in baseball, we could've drafted another catcher a year later but chose not to.  The guy we passed on is a borderline HOF.   The guy we had turned out good but not great.  I'm certain we could've made both Wieters and Posey work out just fine.

 

Caveat is I'm not sure if Posey was considered the BPA at the time.  Matusz was a stud draft prospect and getting him at #4 was a great selection, just didn't work out.  The major debate that year amongst fans following the draft was Matusz vs Smoak.  Posey really wasn't being advocated for very strongly by many fans that I recall.  He did get a really big bonus though, so maybe he was more strongly under consideration than I remember.

Yeah you got it, need is kind of pointless in the MLB draft. Top rated prospects miss all the time (where miss can even mean just become pretty good) and draftees are generally 1-3 years away anyway. If you end up with multiple all-star talents at the same position that's a good problem to have.

 

I remember Smoak was talked about a ton. Crow was also talked about a lot I think. I didn't remember much Posey talk so I just looked around a little. An OH poll, who do you not want to pick, Posey won at 31%, ha. A lot of people thought he'd be a waste with Wieters, unless he could move to short, ha ha. Everyone really hoped that somehow Alvarez or Tim Beckham might fall, little did they know what would happen 9 years later. Keith Law had Posey 2nd (Matusz 7th) but expected TB to take him 1st, BA had him 4th (Matusz 2nd), Stotle on OH said Posey = Pudge, Kevin Goldstein/BP had TB picking Posey 1st, Callis and others had TB picking between Posey and Tim Beckham, Callis ended up with Posey dropping to 6th due to bonus demands. Apparently he had insane bonus demands (I saw a rumor he wanted $12M! Recall at the time slots were only suggestions) and he got almost double what Matusz got (6.2M to 3.2M). Anyway, with all that, Matusz was a reasonable and even good pick IMO that just didn't work out, though he was BA's #5 prospect in baseball at one point. But the point is, don't take a guy off the board due to need.

[TwentyThirtyFive]

Sounds like there is a pretty good chance Davis is gone at #5 but if not and he's a tier above what's left then you take him. If Adley and he both work out then its a good problem to have. Trade 1 of them, split time at C, 1b, DH or maybe even 3b in the case of Davis.

[JeremyStrain]

He's saying "need" should not be a factor for MLB drafts, and gave a very pertinent example.  Last time we had the best catching prospect and top-5 overall prospect in baseball, we could've drafted another catcher a year later but chose not to.  The guy we passed on is a borderline HOF.   The guy we had turned out good but not great.  I'm certain we could've made both Wieters and Posey work out just fine.

 

Caveat is I'm not sure if Posey was considered the BPA at the time.  Matusz was a stud draft prospect and getting him at #4 was a great selection, just didn't work out.  The major debate that year amongst fans following the draft was Matusz vs Smoak.  Posey really wasn't being advocated for very strongly by many fans that I recall.  He did get a really big bonus though, so maybe he was more strongly under consideration than I remember.

Yeah that year was pretty tough. Kind of similar to this year actually, a good sized chunk of guys at the top, and then a drop to the next tier guys. It was clear who that group at the top was going to be, it wasn't clear what order they were going to go in. Even with that there were some picks that were questionable at the time, mostly revolving around Catchers...Skipworth and Castro. They both ended up going before Smoak which was a bit of a shock at the time. At least to me, but I was covering the draft pretty heavy back then.

 

Posey came really close to going #1 overall to the Rays. It was a really light on pitching draft too, with Matusz and Crow really the top 2 guys. Tyler Matzek was in the mix too (HS) but went later and never panned out.

[BSLSteveBirrer]

As Mackus has pointed out many many times after the #1 pick the data shows the separation and success goes rapidly downhill. So you really don't have much of an idea if the C at #4 is any better or has a higher potential to impact the big club than the #5 guy who plays a position that currently appears to be weaker.

 

Sure if by all evaluations you think the C is THE guy then of course draft him and as pointed out its not a bad problem to have if they both pan out. But I am also trusting that the guy you took #1 overall in the draft has a high potential to impact the big club so I am looking elsewhere. Clearly others don't agree. Shoot maybe nobody agrees....lol

[Nigel Tufnel]

Keith Law's projected top 5 in his new mock draft:

 

1. Pittsburgh Pirates: Henry Davis, C, Louisville

2. Texas Rangers: Jordan Lawlar, SS, Jesuit College Prep (TX)

3. Detroit Tigers: Marcelo Mayer, SS, Eastlake (CA) High School

4. Boston Red Sox: Kumar Rocker, RHP, Vanderbilt

5. Baltimore Orioles: Harry Ford, C, North Cobb (GA) High School

The current wisdom is that Baltimore will look to cut a deal here that saves them a substantial amount of money, probably a million or more, after they signed their first pick in 2019, Heston Kjerstad, for $2.5 million below slot. They’ve been linked to Brady House, but he has no reason to take that kind of haircut here, since he’s in every mix from here on down.

 

2021 MLB mock draft 1.0: Kumar Rocker to Red Sox, Pirates go with a catcher at No. 1 in Keith Law's first look – The Athletic

[TwentyThirtyFive]

If they cut a deal I highly doubt its going to be with a prep C.

[Mackus]

Agree. Unless he's a catcher the way Bryce Harper was and nobody expects him to stay there so he's really being drafted as an infielder or something.

[BSLChrisStoner]

If Leiter is available to them at 5, I hope they make that call.  Seems likely to me, that'd he would be joining the O's in-mid '23. 

Means / Rodriguez / Hall / Leiter.  Yes please.  

[Nigel Tufnel]

Here's what Law had to say about Ford in his Top 50 article from last month:

 

11. Harry Ford, C, North Cobb (GA) HS

Ford’s biggest problem might be that scouts find it hard to identify a good major-league comparison for him. He’s athletic, runs well, throws average, rifles the bat through the zone, projects to power, and he’s … a catcher? He does take a huge stride at the plate but stays balanced, and he receives well enough to stay at the position. High school catchers are a high-risk category, but they also rarely look like him.