Give me your rosiest semi-realistic scenario for 2020

[Scalious]

On 12/17/2019 at 7:58 PM, DrungoHazewood said:

But the individual #2, 3, 4, etc picks fail more often than the #1 in the aggregate.  You're always better off picking higher.

It just depends on the draft class. Harper and Stras were super prospects that were clearly a cut above WELL before the draft. Then other draft classes are more muddled even after the college season played out.

So yes, you want to pick 1st if all else fails, but if there is not a slam dunk clear number 1 with all the lofty hype. You are probably not worse off if you end up with the 2nd or 3rd pick.

Edited December 19, 2019 by Scalious

[TheOtherRipken]

On 12/17/2019 at 10:06 AM, MurphDogg said:

Yup, looking at the last 15 drafts from 2002 to 2016 (tough to judge the last three where players haven't reached the Majors yet), the #1 pick was only the most successful of the top 5 picks in 2007 (Price), 2009 (Strasburg), 2011 (Cole although Rendon at 6 has been better) and 2012 (Correa). You can argue 2010 (Harper over Machado) as well, but the bottom line is that #1 picks fail all the time. 

Punting on entire seasons to try to end up with the #1 pick instead of the #3-5 pick is insulting to the fans and probably isn't great for the development of the players on the Major League roster who are trying to win despite the wishes of management.

What about the extra draft capital and the earlier second round pick? Not saying this to justify tanking, I just don’t think the analysis is that linear.

[NCRaven]

We remain the only team in baseball that had done nothing since the winter meanings.  No minor league signings.  No major league signings.  No trades.  Not even a bullpen coach hiring or announcement on coaches roles. 
 

My rosiest hopes are less rosy by the day.

Or I’m bored.  Please your fans.  Anger your fans.  But don’t bore them.  They might find something else to do.

[Scalious]

What can they reasonably do?  They don't have a lot of trade chips. Guys like Givens and Mancini are nice, but in the pool from 30 teams. They don't really stand out.

They are still plowing the field, fertilizing and seeding it. There is not much that can be harvested.

[DrungoHazewood]

10 hours ago, Scalious said:

It just depends on the draft class. Harper and Stras were super prospects that were clearly a cut above WELL before the draft. Then other draft classes are more muddled even after the college season played out.

So yes, you want to pick 1st if all else fails, but if there is not a slam dunk clear number 1 with all the lofty hype. You are probably not worse off if you end up with the 2nd or 3rd pick.

Yes you are, in the aggregate.  If you look at average career values (or total values of all picks at each slot in history), each pick is a bit more valuable than the one following.  Until you get into the 2nd, 3rd, etc rounds where the typical career values are so low that the average is lost in the noise floor.

The difference between most picks isn't big, but it's there.  And you have the advantage of picking higher in every round.

[Just Regular]

https://www.baseballprospectus.com/news/article/56000/moonshot-tanking-doesnt-work-like-it-used-to/

The chart in this story suggests tanking efficiency really drops off if you are 3rd, so at least we were 2nd last year.

I feel the only really meaningful difference between picks is 1-1 and 1-2 in case the game churns up a Griffey, A-Rod or Strasburg, and the higher in every round rest is just a piece of parsley.  I'd happily give the Tigers 2/31/61....871 for 1/32/62....872 even knowing Martin/Torkelson/Hancock right now seem a somewhat flat top tier this year.

[Frobby]

43 minutes ago, OrioleDog said:

https://www.baseballprospectus.com/news/article/56000/moonshot-tanking-doesnt-work-like-it-used-to/

The chart in this story suggests tanking efficiency really drops off if you are 3rd, so at least we were 2nd last year.

I feel the only really meaningful difference between picks is 1-1 and 1-2 in case the game churns up a Griffey, A-Rod or Strasburg, and the higher in every round rest is just a piece of parsley.  I'd happily give the Tigers 2/31/61....871 for 1/32/62....872 even knowing Martin/Torkelson/Hancock right now seem a somewhat flat top tier this year.

Every draft class is shaped differently in terms of the tiers of the top prospects, plus every draft has both flops and unexpected surprises.     The 2010 draft was thought to have a very clear pecking order, with Harper a clear no. 1, Taillon a clear no. 2, and Machado a clear no. 3, and then a big dropoff with no real clear order after that.    But to date, by rWAR Machado has been a little better than Harper, with Taillon being far below them and many other picks. Meanwhile, the top WAR producer in that class is none of the above — it’s Chris Sale, the 13th pick.    23rd pick Christian Yelich is right there with Machado and Harper.    So, you never know.    

My view: higher is better, but you don’t lose on purpose just to get a higher pick, which may or may not pan out.   
 

[NCRaven]

On 12/18/2019 at 11:50 PM, Scalious said:

What can they reasonably do?  They don't have a lot of trade chips. Guys like Givens and Mancini are nice, but in the pool from 30 teams. They don't really stand out.

They are still plowing the field, fertilizing and seeding it. There is not much that can be harvested.

Luke has written about several minor league free agents that could help our ML team this year.  There are undervalued ML free agents that could be had on reasonable contracts.  We have no major league quality players at 2nd base or shortstop.  They are available on short-term deals that won't break the bank or block any minor leaguers that prove deserving of promotion.  Cobb and Means are the only known quantities in the rotation, and Cobb is known to get hurt a lot and Means has only been known for one season.  So depth in starting pitchers would be a help.  In other words, there's a lot that they could and hopefully will do.  They just haven't done anything, yet.