who should we draft at #30, 39?

[hoosiers]

A couple other late mocks - Bleacher Report and Cbssports are below:

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2895131-2020-mlb-mock-draft-brs-final-round-1-picks

https://www.cbssports.com/mlb/news/2020-mlb-mock-draft-spencer-torkelson-austin-martin-go-1-2-marlins-select-first-pitcher-off-board/

BR - Gone - Bitsko, Wilcox, Jarvis, Beeter, Kelley, Cecconi, Howard, Foscue, Loftin and Sabato

BR - Available at 30 - Miller, Walker, Westburg, Fulton, Witt, Mlodzinski, Van Eyk

 

CBSSports - Gone - Bitsko, Ginn (only mock with Ginn in first round), Jarvis, Westburg, Beeter, Loftin, McMahon

CBSSports Available - Miller, Walker, Fulton, Witt, Mlodzinski, Van Eyk, Kelley, Cecconi

CBSSports has us projected to take Carson Montgomery - a name that I should have had in an original list of guys for the Os to take at 30 along with McMahon.

In fact, the CBSSports run of players in the supplemental first reads - Montgomery, Kelley, Fulton, Miller, Mlodzinski. 

This projection has the following available at 39:  Walker, Witt, Van Eyk, Cecconi

Looks like a high quality name will be there at 30.

[hoosiers]

So, of course, final rankings from Keith Law diverge considerably from the mocks above:

rated in the 20s - Van Eyk, Jarvis, Shuster, Burns, Ginn (all pitchers I am listing) plus Walker

30s - Kelley, Witt, Mlodzinski, Beeter, Crochet (Crochet projected to be drafted in middle of first round by most)

40s - Westburg, McMahon, Cecconi

50s - Petey Halpin (highest rating I have seen for him), Loftin, Montgomery, Miller

60s - Foscue (again, near consensus first rounder), Fulton

80s - Jared Jones

[Roll Tide]

On 5/31/2020 at 3:11 PM, Jammer7 said:

So, a hypothetical draft of:

1 (pick #2) Zac Veen OF*

2 (pick #30) Nick Bitsko RHP

3. (pick #39) Dax Fulton LHP

Would you be good with this haul in the first two rounds? You would likely have to save some money at #2 to take the next two, assuming they are there. That would be the only way I do not take Austin Martin or Asa Lacy. You would have to not worry about the competitive cycle beginning in less than five years. Bitsko and Fulton were top 15-20 talents overall, Fulton had the TJ surgery but he is the top HS LHP despite that.
 

Personally, I would do this. What say you?

Not taking the BPA when picking at number 2 overall is beyond stupid. Hopefully Elias is not that dumb! Get the best player you can period!

[Can_of_corn]

1 minute ago, Roll Tide said:

Not taking the BPA when picking at number 2 overall is beyond stupid. Hopefully Elias is not that dumb! Get the best player you can period!

If you rate player A at 87 out of a hundred and player B at 85 out of 100 and player B can be signed for 750K less it isn't "beyond stupid" to go with player B.  Not if you can use that money to get superior players later in the draft.

It may or may not turn out to be the right move, but it isn't stupid.

[MachoMachadoMan]

Petey Halpin became a stud in my OOTP sim so there is my scientific evaluation for why we should target him at #39

[Greg Pappas]

7 minutes ago, MachoMachadoMan said:

Petey Halpin became a stud in my OOTP sim so there is my scientific evaluation for why we should target him at #39

Shhhhhhhhhhhhh!!! That's inside knowledge... 

[hoosiers]

14 minutes ago, Roll Tide said:

Not taking the BPA when picking at number 2 overall is beyond stupid. Hopefully Elias is not that dumb! Get the best player you can period!

I think dropping from a guy rated 1-3 overall in Martin by most sources to a guy rated 4-6 overall in order to afford a consensus top 30 talent in Bitsko is hardly "beyond stupid".  Fulton is generally rated in the 40s due to his injury.  If the Os picked and signed Bitsko and Ginn at 30/39 from the slot savings w Veen, it would be a strong talent haul. 

I think Martin's merits are well-known here, but the issue here is that many players were impacted by the current crises in that they could not demonstrate their improved play or physical maturity.  If we look back on this draft in five years and find out that Veen, Minnesota's Meyer or Asa Lacy had brighter futures than Martin, it would not be a shock to me.

[MachoMachadoMan]

On 5/31/2020 at 3:11 PM, Jammer7 said:

So, a hypothetical draft of:

1 (pick #2) Zac Veen OF*

2 (pick #30) Nick Bitsko RHP

3. (pick #39) Dax Fulton LHP

Would you be good with this haul in the first two rounds? You would likely have to save some money at #2 to take the next two, assuming they are there. That would be the only way I do not take Austin Martin or Asa Lacy. You would have to not worry about the competitive cycle beginning in less than five years. Bitsko and Fulton were top 15-20 talents overall, Fulton had the TJ surgery but he is the top HS LHP despite that.
 

Personally, I would do this. What say you?

My biggest issue with Veen as the #2 pick in this strategy is he's a high schooler. If we go with this strategy, it's likely to target at least one high upside, riskier high schooler at 30 or 39. In this scenario from Jammer we're taking three high school players. I get that Elias reportedly has a long leash, but we were hoping the window for a competitive team starts to open in 2022 when we're hoping Rutschman, Mountcastle, Hall, and Rodriguez are all on the ML roster and beginning to contribute. Gonzalez, Hancock, Kjerstad could all feasibly follow in short order as part of this core. I don't know if we want to come out of this draft with our hopes kicked entirely down to 2024 before we see anyone at OPACY.

 

[hoosiers]

Lol - if we had a 2025 rotation of Hall, GrayRod, Bitsko and Fulton w a lineup that includes Hays, Mountcastle, Adley and Martin, I would wait for that.  We need talent more than guys who fit a time frame.

[Roll Tide]

32 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

If you rate player A at 87 out of a hundred and player B at 85 out of 100 and player B can be signed for 750K less it isn't "beyond stupid" to go with player B.  Not if you can use that money to get superior players later in the draft.

It may or may not turn out to be the right move, but it isn't stupid.

Sorry ....Point rating systems don't work in baseball nearly as well as football. You take the guy with the best chance of succeeding.

 

If you don't agree fine .... But I challenge you to prove me wrong in any capacity. Baseball prospects mostly miss!

[Can_of_corn]

Just now, Roll Tide said:

Sorry ....Point rating systems don't work in baseball nearly as well as football. You take the guy with the best chance of succeeding.

 

If you don't agree fine .... But I challenge you to prove me wrong in any capacity. Baseball prospects mostly miss!

Considering I don't have access to any of the evaluations teams have used you are safe in your challenge.

That being said you maximize your value.  I'm not saying it is the best move all or even some of the time, but situations do exist. 

 

[Roll Tide]

30 minutes ago, hoosiers said:

I think dropping from a guy rated 1-3 overall in Martin by most sources to a guy rated 4-6 overall in order to afford a consensus top 30 talent in Bitsko is hardly "beyond stupid".  Fulton is generally rated in the 40s due to his injury.  If the Os picked and signed Bitsko and Ginn at 30/39 from the slot savings w Veen, it would be a strong talent haul. 

I think Martin's merits are well-known here, but the issue here is that many players were impacted by the current crises in that they could not demonstrate their improved play or physical maturity.  If we look back on this draft in five years and find out that Veen, Minnesota's Meyer or Asa Lacy had brighter futures than Martin, it would not be a shock to me.

Its likely half+ of those six guys never make the majors. Its baseball not football!

 

Taking an inferior player to save money for later makes no sense over taking the guy you will most likely hit on!

 

https://sabr.org/research/chances-drafted-baseball-player-making-major-leagues-quantitative-study

Quote

The Chances of a Drafted Baseball Player Making the Major Leagues: A Quantitative Study

 

Table 1: First Round and Supplemental First

	Number	Percent
Players drafted	745	----
High school pitchers	172	23.1
High school position players	184	24.7
College pitchers	231	31.0
College position players	158	21.2
Players signed	724	97.2
High school pitchers	162	21.7
High school position players	180	24.2
College pitchers	226	30.3
College position players	156	20.9
Played in the major leagues	483	66.7 (of players signed)
High school pitchers	97	13.4
High school position players	102	14.1
College pitchers	162	22.4
College position players	122	16.9
Played in the majors 3+ yrs	339	46.8 (of players signed)
High school pitchers	55	7.6
High school position players	76	10.5
College pitchers	113	15.6
College position players	95	13.1

 

[Roll Tide]

2 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

Considering I don't have access to any of the evaluations teams have used you are safe in your challenge.

That being said you maximize your value.  I'm not saying it is the best move all or even some of the time, but situations do exist. 

 

Please view the table I posted in my last post....Only about 30% will actually make the majors and lower will have a solid major league career,

 

[Can_of_corn]

Just now, Roll Tide said:

Please view the table I posted in my last post....Only about 30% will actually make the majors and lower will have a solid major league career,

 

Sure.

And maybe your BPA won't make it either.

But maybe that overslot kid you picked at #30 does.

You could make the case that getting two more highly rated players increases your odds of getting one that sticks.

[Can_of_corn]

To flat out say that in all situations it is "beyond stupid" to not pick the BPA is incredibly shortsighted.

Do you think Nick Markakis was at the top of the O's draft board when they picked him?