Grade the Draft

[makoman]

4 minutes ago, SteveA said:

Yep, I probably would have.   Good cherry picking with hindsight.    And if you are making any point at all, it is that trying to evaluate a draft right after it happens is an exercise in absurdity.   I agree.

But this poll exists, so that is what we are going to try to do, based on the limited information that we have.  Even though it's an absurd exercise.   So I had to choose an answer.

And to me, when you have  top 2 pick (for the 3rd time in franchise history), I want to either come away with a potential top of the rotation starter or a multi-tool player, and based on what I have seen, Kjerstad doesn't seem like that to me.   If I take a position player #2, I'd like to see a player who plays a premium defensive position, because the majority of guys will move DOWN on the defensive spectrum before they reach the majors, or at best stay the same.   I'd want to see a guy who doesn't have questions about his swing, or whose speed is better than "just OK".    And Kjerstad just doesn't feel like that to me.

If you are not basing your evaluation of the pick on the general consensus of the media/scouting community, then what ARE you basing it on?   If you give a good grade just based on "Elias is smarter than we are, he must know something about Kjerstad", then you might as well have voted and given him a good grade BEFORE the draft was even held.   Pencil the smart kid in for an A and don't even make him go to class.

 

 

Well, if he'd picked Kjerstad and then some regular 4thish and 5thish type guys he would not get much positivity at all, even if he thought Kjerstad was a legit #2.

For me, those 4th and 5th round guys are really interesting, and he did a good job of executing the strategy of underslot plus some overslots. I said somewhere above, this team can't just do what everybody else does in our division so I'm happy taking a risk here. It could blow up in our faces but it's a plan with a strategy and that's something we haven't always seemed to have. I am also projecting some of my feelings onto this...to me, if he felt that Martin was a slam dunk all star in waiting that is vastly better than the alternatives he would have just picked Martin. You take that with your draft if you can get it and call it a day. The fact that he decided to go with this strategy at all implies that he doesn't see that vast difference between Martin and Kjerstad, either the former isn't such a slam dunk or the latter is more of a top 5 guy to him, or both. 

So yeah, I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt and also adding some wishful/hopeful thinking. It helps that I didn't follow this all that much so I wasn't already anchored to Martin like a lot of people, I understand being disappointed when you've already decided who's best.

[SteveA]

1 minute ago, makoman said:

Well, if he'd picked Kjerstad and then some regular 4thish and 5thish type guys he would not get much positivity at all, even if he thought Kjerstad was a legit #2.

For me, those 4th and 5th round guys are really interesting, and he did a good job of executing the strategy of underslot plus some overslots. I said somewhere above, this team can't just do what everybody else does in our division so I'm happy taking a risk here. It could blow up in our faces but it's a plan with a strategy and that's something we haven't always seemed to have. I am also projecting some of my feelings onto this...to me, if he felt that Martin was a slam dunk all star in waiting that is vastly better than the alternatives he would have just picked Martin. You take that with your draft if you can get it and call it a day. The fact that he decided to go with this strategy at all implies that he doesn't see that vast difference between Martin and Kjerstad, either the former isn't such a slam dunk or the latter is more of a top 5 guy to him, or both. 

So yeah, I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt and also adding some wishful/hopeful thinking. It helps that I didn't follow this all that much so I wasn't already anchored to Martin like a lot of people, I understand being disappointed when you've already decided who's best.

I actually wasn't anchored to Martin either.   I was hoping we would take Lacey.

[weams]

57 minutes ago, SteveA said:

Yep, I probably would have.   Good cherry picking with hindsight.    And if you are making any point at all, it is that trying to evaluate a draft right after it happens is an exercise in absurdity.   I agree.

But this poll exists, so that is what we are going to try to do, based on the limited information that we have.  Even though it's an absurd exercise.   So I had to choose an answer.

And to me, when you have  top 2 pick (for the 3rd time in franchise history), I want to either come away with a potential top of the rotation starter or a multi-tool player, and based on what I have seen, Kjerstad doesn't seem like that to me.   If I take a position player #2, I'd like to see a player who plays a premium defensive position, because the majority of guys will move DOWN on the defensive spectrum before they reach the majors, or at best stay the same.   I'd want to see a guy who doesn't have questions about his swing, or whose speed is better than "just OK".    And Kjerstad just doesn't feel like that to me.

If you are not basing your evaluation of the pick on the general consensus of the media/scouting community, then what ARE you basing it on?   If you give a good grade just based on "Elias is smarter than we are, he must know something about Kjerstad", then you might as well have voted and given him a good grade BEFORE the draft was even held.   Pencil the smart kid in for an A and don't even make him go to class.

 

 

I believe that this group of evaluators have different metrics and different scouting methods than any I have seen. Or those mock board guys have seen. Or other teams may have seen. I at least want them to try their methods before they get tossed out for the next flavor of the week. Sig is like YoYo Ma. You have to at lease let him play the cello. 

[weams]

45 minutes ago, SteveA said:

I actually wasn't anchored to Martin either.   I was hoping we would take Lacey.

I loved Lacy. 

[linedrive]

Grade B

Yes, like many, I give Elias the benefit of the doubt. Prior to the draft he said they were considering 5-7 players for the 2nd pick. I didn't think he was serious. I figured the O's would take the best player available, and maybe they had 2-3 real candidates. But now I get what he was saying. He really was looking at all those players because he had a strategy, and I think he did get the best player available- as he would define it. They did their homework, and I'm sure they like the makeup of these kids, their, character, upside, and their ability to develop. One analyst said he believed the O's had a deal in place with several of their picks, and that played into their strategy of taking Kjerstad. I wouldn't be surprised if all the teams passing on Martin were concerned about being able to sign him, and how that would impact later picks. Was he really the best player available? I don't know much about his character and makeup, or if there were other concerns or issues, but maybe some unknown factors played into the decision. Even if he is as good as advertised, if the O's strike it rich with Kjerstad, maybe he will end up playing longer in an O's uniform than what Martin would have. Who knows...

I am disappointed we didn't get more pitching though. I would love to have taken Lacy, or another top HS arm. I'm guessing some of the arms Elias wanted were snagged ahead of him. But I think we did well in this draft. 

[DrinkinWithFermi]

Really like the Kjerstad, Mayo, and Baumler picks.

The Westburg, Haskins, and Servideo picks less so.

Think Martin was somewhat overrated, not super devastated like some others here that we passed on him.

Would have liked to get at least one promising college pitcher or another high upside HS pitcher with one of the Westburg/Haskins/Servideo picks.

It's all a crapshoot anyway, but I'll say B. 

[atomic]

I have never seen any of the players play so I don't feel I am able to give a proper evaluation.  We will have to wait 4 years or so to know. 

[oriole]

I voted B. I was pretty perturbed at first but I think the strategy is solid overall. I still think you just go best player available in the first round though 

[BohKnowsBmore]

2 hours ago, SteveA said:

Yep, I probably would have.   Good cherry picking with hindsight.    And if you are making any point at all, it is that trying to evaluate a draft right after it happens is an exercise in absurdity.   I agree.

But this poll exists, so that is what we are going to try to do, based on the limited information that we have.  Even though it's an absurd exercise.   So I had to choose an answer.

And to me, when you have  top 2 pick (for the 3rd time in franchise history), I want to either come away with a potential top of the rotation starter or a multi-tool player, and based on what I have seen, Kjerstad doesn't seem like that to me.   If I take a position player #2, I'd like to see a player who plays a premium defensive position, because the majority of guys will move DOWN on the defensive spectrum before they reach the majors, or at best stay the same.   I'd want to see a guy who doesn't have questions about his swing, or whose speed is better than "just OK".    And Kjerstad just doesn't feel like that to me.

If you are not basing your evaluation of the pick on the general consensus of the media/scouting community, then what ARE you basing it on?   If you give a good grade just based on "Elias is smarter than we are, he must know something about Kjerstad", then you might as well have voted and given him a good grade BEFORE the draft was even held.   Pencil the smart kid in for an A and don't even make him go to class.

 

 

As far as a multi-tool player He's definitely got plus power, but it seems like arm and bat could be tools as well (albeit with risk). Doesn't seem like he's a particular negative w/r/t fielding or speed relative to position (not a plus, though).

[BohKnowsBmore]

1 hour ago, linedrive said:

Grade B

Yes, like many, I give Elias the benefit of the doubt. Prior to the draft he said they were considering 5-7 players for the 2nd pick. I didn't think he was serious. I figured the O's would take the best player available, and maybe they had 2-3 real candidates. But now I get what he was saying. He really was looking at all those players because he had a strategy, and I think he did get the best player available- as he would define it. They did their homework, and I'm sure they like the makeup of these kids, their, character, upside, and their ability to develop. One analyst said he believed the O's had a deal in place with several of their picks, and that played into their strategy of taking Kjerstad. I wouldn't be surprised if all the teams passing on Martin were concerned about being able to sign him, and how that would impact later picks. Was he really the best player available? I don't know much about his character and makeup, or if there were other concerns or issues, but maybe some unknown factors played into the decision. Even if he is as good as advertised, if the O's strike it rich with Kjerstad, maybe he will end up playing longer in an O's uniform than what Martin would have. Who knows...

I am disappointed we didn't get more pitching though. I would love to have taken Lacy, or another top HS arm. I'm guessing some of the arms Elias wanted were snagged ahead of him. But I think we did well in this draft. 

I want to put a slightly different framing here. How one defines BPA could be much more open to interpretation this year (with greater error bars). I think we may be collectively anchoring to media scouting reports/mocks too much in a year when their information is likely to be even more incomplete than normal.

[section18]

Grade C !  The Scott Boras factor was at play here. I cannot ever see Elias and Boras having a decent conversation. Each thinks they are the smartest guy in the room. Would never work. So we passed on Nick Gonzalez to apparently save around $500,000.  We passed on some quality pitchers between 30 and 79. Why? Why? Only Elias knows why. Kelley, McMahon, Bleeter. Cecconi. etc. The Dodgers took Bobby Miller at 29. Would we have taken him with our 30th pick if they passed on him? Remember that name Bobby Miller. Future star for the Dodgers. We'll never know if they passed on him.. Our 2nd and 3rd round picks left you breathless or want to break a window. They rallied with the Mayp (signed)and Baumler picks. I'm staying with a C grade.  I just heard they have agreed to terms with Baumler.

[DirtyBird]

If you didn’t pick “A”, you are wrong.

[Can_of_corn]

1 minute ago, DirtyBird said:

If you didn’t pick “A”, you are wrong.

I'm not at all sure they wouldn't have been better off going with chalk.

[DirtyBird]

2 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

I'm not at all sure they wouldn't have been better off going with chalk.

We basically stole the draft and you don’t even realize it.

[Can_of_corn]

2 minutes ago, DirtyBird said:

We basically stole the draft and you don’t even realize it.

Or maybe we ended up with nothing.

Probably somewhere in between.

We'll find out.  I'm not haughty enough to declare one way or another.