Who will be #26-#30 prospects?

[weams]

Who finishes it out? 

[DirtyBird]

No Watson, #79 overall pick in most recent draft.

Bad pick, or deep system?

[weams]

5 minutes ago, DirtyBird said:

No Watson, #79 overall pick in most recent draft.

Bad pick, or deep system?

You are right, I should have put him up there to trick someone.  I personally am a Watson guy. I played it fairly straight up though. That's your only hint. 

[Number5]

Choices 3 and 5 are the same players, so it's a tossup between those two.  I had Sedlock and Tate as 26 and 27, so Choice 3 is the closest one for me.  Gotta like Welk and McLarty.  It would be great if one of them pans out.

[Frobby]

Tough call.    The only one I’m sure is wrong is no. 4.     No way Craport, Sparks or Bishop are in the top 30 this year.   The others are all plausible.    I chose no. 3 because it has both Tate and Sedlock, who’ve each been listed a ton up to now.    5 is identical to 3 but in a different order; I more or less flipped a coin between those choices.  

[DirtyBird]

It is 2 or 5

[Frobby]

25 minutes ago, DirtyBird said:

It is 2 or 5

How do you eliminate 3 if you include 5?   Same list, different order.   

[Luke-OH]

1 hour ago, DirtyBird said:

No Watson, #79 overall pick in most recent draft.

Bad pick, or deep system?

There’s some depth, I had Watson just off the 30 and I probably could’ve been talked into including him. It’s the standard toolsy OF with some pop who probably won’t hit enough. I thought he looked bad at LSU, but his debut was better albeit in a tiny sample size. I saw him a lot more playing in college and there wasn’t an obvious profile change so I’m ok being wait and see with him. 

 

[weams]

25 minutes ago, Frobby said:

How do you eliminate 3 if you include 5?   Same list, different order.   

Because of Tate being too high. Or something. 

[DirtyBird]

1 hour ago, Luke-OH said:

There’s some depth, I had Watson just off the 30 and I probably could’ve been talked into including him. It’s the standard toolsy OF with some pop who probably won’t hit enough. I thought he looked bad at LSU, but his debut was better albeit in a tiny sample size. I saw him a lot more playing in college and there wasn’t an obvious profile change so I’m ok being wait and see with him. 

 

So, a bad pick, and we gave him full slot bonus

[weams]

10 minutes ago, DirtyBird said:

So, a bad pick, and we gave him full slot bonus

Or maybe the magic men see something. We will know more next year. National guys are higher on him. 

[Can_of_corn]

44 minutes ago, DirtyBird said:

So, a bad pick, and we gave him full slot bonus

Could be worse, he could have been a projected third round talent taken in the first.

[Philip]

Luke implied in another comment that I shouldn’t be so down on Sedlock, but one does expect a bit more from a high Pick. Tate, certainly, sure looks like the Rangers will never regret letting him go.

[Can_of_corn]

5 minutes ago, Philip said:

Luke implied in another comment that I shouldn’t be so down on Sedlock, but one does expect a bit more from a high Pick. Tate, certainly, sure looks like the Rangers will never regret letting him go.

Who said anything about Sedlock? 

[Tony-OH]

2 hours ago, Luke-OH said:

There’s some depth, I had Watson just off the 30 and I probably could’ve been talked into including him. It’s the standard toolsy OF with some pop who probably won’t hit enough. I thought he looked bad at LSU, but his debut was better albeit in a tiny sample size. I saw him a lot more playing in college and there wasn’t an obvious profile change so I’m ok being wait and see with him. 

 

He just missed on mine as well. 4th outfielder comp without a lot of pro stats to back it up one way or the other. Long swing without the power of Stowers but similar swing problems.