Grade the Draft

[Just Regular]

46 minutes ago, Frobby said:

CBS.com gives us a C.   https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cbssports.com/mlb/news/mlb-draft-2020-grades-mets-cardinals-rays-earn-a-for-solid-hauls-yankees-red-sox-among-worst-marks/amp/

Bleacher Report: B+ https://www.google.com/amp/s/syndication.bleacherreport.com/amp/2895870-2020-mlb-draft-results-easy-to-view-grades-for-each-franchise.amp.html

This point from Axisa on the CBS one...

Feels like they could've had a very similar draft with the No. 15 pick. 

...I feel is basically incorrect, and demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of pool economics.

Never mind that Kjerstad himself was safely in the Top 10-12 tier, and probably a 50-1 underdog to make it to #15.

[BohKnowsBmore]

17 minutes ago, OrioleDog said:

This point from Axisa on the CBS one...

Feels like they could've had a very similar draft with the No. 15 pick. 

...I feel is basically incorrect, and demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of pool economics.

Never mind that Kjerstad himself was safely in the Top 10-12 tier, and probably a 50-1 underdog to make it to #15.

Very well said.

[wildbillhiccup]

3 hours ago, LTO's said:

FWIW some people don't think Martin has a good enough arm to play CF, SS or 3B. So you are essentially giving full slot value at the second pick to a second baseman. That is not a highly regarded strategy. If he sticks at one of those positions and hits well then we might be looking at a mistake. But, if Kjerstad out slugs him and plays solid OF defense Elias will look like a genius especially if one of the high schoolers make it up here.

Wow, so now we're projecting Kjerstad to be better defensively than Martin? I feel like you're on an island of one with that argument. And I hope the goal is to improve the team not make Elias look like a genius. And yes, they two can be mutually exclusive. The fastest way between two points is a straight line. Martin was that straight line, and Elias opted to take the scenic route. 

[24fps]

1 hour ago, Frobby said:

CBS.com gives us a C.   https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cbssports.com/mlb/news/mlb-draft-2020-grades-mets-cardinals-rays-earn-a-for-solid-hauls-yankees-red-sox-among-worst-marks/amp/

Bleacher Report: B+ https://www.google.com/amp/s/syndication.bleacherreport.com/amp/2895870-2020-mlb-draft-results-easy-to-view-grades-for-each-franchise.amp.html

Earlier today the Bleacher Report grade was a plain B, so they revised their opinion upward at some point.

[hoosiers]

1 hour ago, SteveA said:

I would have gone lower but I deferred to Tony's take on the last two picks, so I upped the grade to a C.

When you suffer through a miserable season and wind up with a top pick, you expect to get someone considered to be a premium talent.   (And before you point out how many #2s don't work out, I know that, but if you are going to take that point of view there is no point in trying to grade a draft at all.   The poll is here, so if I am going to pick a grade, saying it's all a crapshoot anyway is a complete copout).

Bottom line, we had the #2 pick overall and we didn't get anyone who was in the consensus top 10.   Our top 3 picks do not appear to be complete players.   But we got significant value with our last two picks.

SteveA, my question is whether it is more important to walk away with the second best consensus talent in the draft (understanding afterwards that two other teams passed on him), or to walk away with the first or second amount of aggregate talent in the draft.  (Also, noting that Kjerstad was inside the top 10 of the mock of pretty much every influential analyst.)

Folks may have preferred a draft like the Mets or a couple of other teams that focused on two or three main guys and then took underslot signings.  That strategy is fine.  We will end up with six legitimate prospects with at least five of them receiving $1.5M or more.  I say this because, while we all know about coronavirus and the lost college and high school seasons, the impact of the lack of visibility and stats of these players this spring is enormous.  There are going to be third, fourth and fifth round guys who immediately outperform their draft position.  The analysts on the MLB Network said in one case that the scouts who saw Pete Crowe-Armstrong (drafted 19th overall) and Petey Halpin (drafted 95th overall) said the Halpin was not so far behind.  In this year more so than most any other, I think a strategy of spreading the bonus $ around more prospects is a major hedge in case one particular prospect turns out to not be as good as thought.  

My only issue with the draft is really Westburg though he was legitimately pegged for 25-45.  I think we wanted a couple players as the draft headed toward our pick at 30 and several were popped right before our pick including Miller, Bitsko and Shuster.

I understand the frustration of not getting Martin for some here, but Kjerstad was a top ten guy.  From the end of the first round to the end of the draft, I think we picked up as much overall talent as any one team - and that was the goal.  A for me.

[Number5]

2 hours ago, Moose Milligan said:

I don't disagree.  But it's not like the consensus of his draft value was totally off....no one (except Elias, of course) had him lower than Kjerstad.  Perhaps rumors of asking price AND consensus of draft value weren't aligned, but not off by a lot.  Off by just enough to let him slide a little to 5th in the draft where he can't really command 1:1 money.  

I'm not so sure about that.  It was reported that KC was talking to Kjerstad the morning of the draft regarding the #4 pick.  KC then passed on Martin when he was surprisingly available to them.  Connecting the dots, KC may well have had Kjerstad higher on their board than Martin.  I'm sure KC would have done their homework on Martin, since it was certainly possible for the Orioles to take Gonzales and Miami to take Lacy, based on numerous reports concerning those teams and players.  I think it is possible that teams that did a lot of work on Martin may have viewed Martin as strictly a 2B in the big leagues and just didn't put him in the top 4 or 5 of the draft.

Heck, playing devils' advocate, it seems possible to me that Toronto hadn't really looked all that deeply into Martin, as much the teams ahead of them may have, since they may have felt it was a foregone conclusion that he would be gone before they were on the clock.  Seems like just about every iteration of mock drafts had Martin either 1, 2, 3, or 4.  Who knows, maybe Kjerstad was the Blue Jays' guy and we blew up their board.  Maybe faced with a decision that had to be made in 5 minutes they just went with the guy that was the internet consensus.  Point is, we really don't know what MLB teams thought of either Kjerstad or Martin, and I think it is fair to say that Toronto probably didn't base their preparations on taking Martin at 1.5. 

Is it possible that Martin turns out to be the best pick of the draft?  Sure!  But just maybe it will turn out being Kjerstad!  Hey, I can dream, can't I?

[weams]

1 hour ago, SteveA said:

I would have gone lower but I deferred to Tony's take on the last two picks, so I upped the grade to a C.

When you suffer through a miserable season and wind up with a top pick, you expect to get someone considered to be a premium talent.   (And before you point out how many #2s don't work out, I know that, but if you are going to take that point of view there is no point in trying to grade a draft at all.   The poll is here, so if I am going to pick a grade, saying it's all a crapshoot anyway is a complete copout).

Bottom line, we had the #2 pick overall and we didn't get anyone who was in the consensus top 10.   Our top 3 picks do not appear to be complete players.   But we got significant value with our last two picks.

If we had the number 2 pick in 2009, would you have been saddened that we chose not Dustin Ackley, but Michael Trout?

[DrungoHazewood]

3 minutes ago, weams said:

If we had the number 2 pick in 2009, would you have been saddened that we chose not Dustin Ackley, but Michael Trout?

So you're saying there's a chance Kjerstad becomes the greatest player of all time?

[Frobby]

29 minutes ago, 24fps said:

Earlier today the Bleacher Report grade was a plain B, so they revised their opinion upward at some point.

They also are very easy graders.   15 teams got B+ or higher.    Sort of defeats the purpose of giving grades.   

[weams]

Just now, DrungoHazewood said:

So you're saying there's a chance Kjerstad becomes the greatest player of all time?

I'm saying that there is a chance that he has a grander career than Dustin. 

[LTO's]

1 hour ago, wildbillhiccup said:

Wow, so now we're projecting Kjerstad to be better defensively than Martin? I feel like you're on an island of one with that argument. And I hope the goal is to improve the team not make Elias look like a genius. And yes, they two can be mutually exclusive. The fastest way between two points is a straight line. Martin was that straight line, and Elias opted to take the scenic route. 

I actually didn't make that argument at all. Many don't think Martin can play SS or CF. If he is relegated to second base and doesn't generate as much power as Kjerstad they will be very similar in value. It is not even close to out of the realm of possibility that Kjerstad ends up being a much better power hitter than Martin. Martin isn't Bryce Harper or Arod or Strasburg or even a Rutschman. A few pundits said he was the best player in the draft but clearly 4 other teams did not agree with that.

[beantownrefugee]

B+

I didn't feel Martin was worth slot value at 1-2, let alone the 1-1 he is apparently seeking.  Elias didn't handcuff the remainder of the draft by overspending on Martin.  For that reason alone, I'll give this an above average grade. I did however look at Lacy as worth slot value, and would give the O's a trio of highly regarded starters (with Hall and Rodriguez). Maybe Baulmer pans out and becomes that third pitching prospect.  Mayo or any of the other picks contributing would be gravy.

[SteveA]

1 hour ago, weams said:

If we had the number 2 pick in 2009, would you have been saddened that we chose not Dustin Ackley, but Michael Trout?

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.

 

 

[atomic]

6 hours ago, Frobby said:

I think much depends on what Kjerstad turns out to be.     You can look at him as the 10th best player in the draft, or you can look at him as a guy who Elias liked much better than that.     

The early reports I read on him suggested slow, lots of swing and miss, light tower power.    I inferred from that he’d be a below average defensive corner OF, too.    But then later reports (including what Elias said) show some very strong swing adjustments and less swing and miss this year (11.5%) and he’s apparently a pretty good defender despite his lack of speed.     If he’s truly the best LH hitter in the draft, as Elias believes (or at least says), this strategy may very well pan out.  Only time will tell.   
 

Seems that Elias checked out how Nick Gonzalez and Zac Veen felt about underslot deals as well.  Maybe Kjerstad was the one willing to take the least amount of money. 

[Yossarian]

The Orioles had three picks before most other teams picked their second player.  And yet - they did not get anybody that most annalists would consider an "impact" type player.  They were (reportedly) able to lure a couple of high school kids out of their college commitments, but it will be years before we know if that means anything.

I will go with a solid C.