I've looked at past drafts a number of times over the years, and what always stands out is how rare it is for players after the first few rounds to have significant MLB success. After the first few rounds it truly is an educated crapshoot with terrible odds. So the strategy of going overslot early and paying for it later doesn't bother me in the slightest when the return is someone like Gunnar. I like that we weighted heavily towards position players this draft because we actually have some pitching depth and are terribly thin in the field. And I like that we focused up the middle, positions that traditionally have the most adaptable athletes. Not just because they can more easily adapt to new positions, but because we've been feeling how limiting it is when your top young players are best suited defensively for 1B/DH. Projecting some of the position changes, we seem to go 1 (occasionally 2) deep at every position now (though highly debatable what that means). The goal for the next year is obviously to add a handful of additional top prospects, and then improve the depth. I honestly have no opinion on Day 2 results beyond that......we're a year away from even having the slightest idea how we did yesterday. I appreciate the insights and player evals, but I take all of this with a high level of skepticism.