2009 Draft: #2 Grant Green (9-22-08)

[Stotle]

As much as Green seems like our perfect pick since the O's are really weak at SS, I wouldn't be dissappointedin getting Alex White who I think will be a #1 starter. Greg I watched a couple of Wareham Gateman and was really impressed with Brandon Workman(pitcher from Texas). What areyour thoughts on him?

Not Greg, but I'm up working so I figured I'd add my unsolicited thoughts

Workman will be eligible for the 2010 draft and is a strong candidate to be one of the top pitchers in that class. Works in the low-90s with his fastball (solid movement) and has a 12-6 CB that shows promise (flashing plus-depth) but is still inconsistent. His CH is still a work in progress. He has a great frame (6-5 / 220) with room to add velocity as he fine-tunes his motion. I'd assume teams love his size and the potential for two plus-pitches by May 2010.

EDIT -- Sorry, just saw Greg responded

[nemO821]

Thanks as well.

[Greg Pappas]

Hmm... We know the O's have need for SS and 1B in the next few years... (Sorry JTrea.. I just don't think we're signing Tex) so it's highly possible we could get at least 1 of them although I'd prefer Green.

What is the likelihood if we pick 5 that one of these 2 are available? (In other words, what are other teams needs picking ahead of us) And what's the likelihood one of them is available and we pick a pitcher instead? :scratchchinhmm:

Teams generally don't choose by current ML needs, but rather the best player available.

The teams ahead of us will take the best four players on the board.

It's very early in the process of determining who those four players will be, and no one will know for sure until draft day next June. However, an eary guess might look like this...

Seattle> Strasburg

Washington> Green

San Diego> Aaron Crow

Pittsburgh> Alex White

Baltimore> ???

If every draft prognosticator were asked to take a stab at the top 5 choices for the 2009 Draft right now, it's likely no one would get it exactly right. There are just too many variables.

[allstar1579]

Teams generally don't choose by current ML needs, but rather the best player available.

The teams ahead of us will take the best four players on the board.

It's very early in the process of determining who those four players will be, and no one will know for sure until draft day next June. However, an eary guess might look like this...

Seattle> Strasburg

Washington> Green

San Diego> Aaron Crow

Pittsburgh> Alex White

Baltimore> ???

If every draft prognosticator were asked to take a stab at the top 5 choices for the 2009 Draft right now, it's likely no one would get it exactly right. There are just too many variables.

I'll make the bold prediction that Crow does not go to WAS.

[Greg Pappas]

I'll make the bold prediction that Crow does not go to WAS.

:laughlol: We agree there.

[WebLink21]

Teams generally don't choose by current ML needs, but rather the best player available.

The teams ahead of us will take the best four players on the board.

It's very early in the process of determining who those four players will be, and no one will know for sure until draft day next June. However, an eary guess might look like this...

Seattle> Strasburg

Washington> Green

San Diego> Aaron Crow

Pittsburgh> Alex White

Baltimore> ???

If every draft prognosticator were asked to take a stab at the top 5 choices for the 2009 Draft right now, it's likely no one would get it exactly right. There are just too many variables.

At that point I would hand in a card that read Dustin Ackle and start slapping high fives! :clap3:

[Greg Pappas]

At that point I would hand in a card that read Dustin Ackle and start slapping high fives! :clap3:

Did you mean Dusty Ackle, the diminutive LHP from Peoria A&M Tech College?

I started to type Ackley's name next to Baltimore, but that would take the drama out of it.

[wickedwitch]

According to Kevin Goldstein, he's advised by Boras, and unlike Strasburg, he could very well drop. (And by "drop" I mean 'get to us.')

[Greg Pappas]

According to Kevin Goldstein, he's advised by Boras, and unlike Strasburg, he could very well drop. (And by "drop" I mean 'get to us.')

Both he and Strasburg are Boras clients... we can have hope, although it's unlikely that if both have the years anticipated that we'd get a shot at them.

[WebLink21]

According to Kevin Goldstein, he's advised by Boras, and unlike Strasburg, he could very well drop. (And by "drop" I mean 'get to us.')

Clubs didn't seem to shy away from Boras clients as much this past draft for some reason. I think a lot was heard after so many clubs passed on Weiters the year before. I still would be shocked to see him there IF we are picking at 5. I think he will be gone in the top 3 pick IMO.

[Greg Pappas]

Coach Schiffner did tell me that Green had a sore shoulder at the end of the Cape season... I took his meaning as the throwing shoulder.

Its highly unlikely to become an issue, but nonetheless a little thing to keep an eye on.

[oriole_way]

With the new rule where the team receives another first round draft pick in the same slot the following year if they cannot sign their current first round draft pick, it doesn't make sense to shy away from a Boras client.

(I realize that previous sentence may not read very well, so I'll give the following example: Washington gets pick 9A this year after failing to sign Aaron Crow at pick 9 this year.)

1. The team has a fallback with the possibility of just delaying their draft pick by a year. It's delayed gratification, but there's still gratification.

2. I think a high first round draft pick has less leverage. While the team can now say, "Fine, we'll just take our pick next year," the player doesn't have any new upside by losing a year. The player still loses a year of development under professionals, risks injury and possibly not being as high of a draft pick the following year, delays getting a nice paycheck for a year and eventually gets to free agency 1 year later.

At least that's how I see it. For example, I don't think the Nationals lost anything by not being able to sign Crow last year.

[Stotle]

With the new rule where the team receives another first round draft pick in the same slot the following year if they cannot sign their current first round draft pick, it doesn't make sense to shy away from a Boras client.

(I realize that previous sentence may not read very well, so I'll give the following example: Washington gets pick 9A this year after failing to sign Aaron Crow at pick 9 this year.)

1. The team has a fallback with the possibility of just delaying their draft pick by a year. It's delayed gratification, but there's still gratification.

2. I think a high first round draft pick has less leverage. While the team can now say, "Fine, we'll just take our pick next year," the player doesn't have any new upside by losing a year. The player still loses a year of development under professionals, risks injury and possibly not being as high of a draft pick the following year, delays getting a nice paycheck for a year and eventually gets to free agency 1 year later.

At least that's how I see it. For example, I don't think the Nationals lost anything by not being able to sign Crow last year.

I agree in part, but I think you might be underestimating the value of having the top prospect in your system for a year. Further, the WAS example doesn't really work unless they are willing to pay for top draftees (current indication is that they are not). They will likely have a shot at two top draftees -- can you see them spending $7-10mio to get the best available at each pick?

[wickedwitch]

With the new rule where the team receives another first round draft pick in the same slot the following year if they cannot sign their current first round draft pick, it doesn't make sense to shy away from a Boras client.

(I realize that previous sentence may not read very well, so I'll give the following example: Washington gets pick 9A this year after failing to sign Aaron Crow at pick 9 this year.)

1. The team has a fallback with the possibility of just delaying their draft pick by a year. It's delayed gratification, but there's still gratification.

2. I think a high first round draft pick has less leverage. While the team can now say, "Fine, we'll just take our pick next year," the player doesn't have any new upside by losing a year. The player still loses a year of development under professionals, risks injury and possibly not being as high of a draft pick the following year, delays getting a nice paycheck for a year and eventually gets to free agency 1 year later.

At least that's how I see it. For example, I don't think the Nationals lost anything by not being able to sign Crow last year.

But the replacement pick is not protected, so the team has virtually no leverage the following year.

[Lt Melmo]

I posted in the Strasburg thread about Boras before I read this thread so I'll just ask here.

1. If, by some crazy insane circumstance, the four teams ahead of us are SO scared of Boras that both Green and Strasburg fall to us at 5, who do you pick? Do you go with talent or need?

2. Only one team drafting ahead of us next year (Pirates) were drafting ahead of us when Wieters fell. Can we expect at least one of the Nats, Mariners and Giants to avoid Boras? The Pirates' new GM, Neal Huntington, the new-fangled stats geek who lives in his mother's basement, was given the job after the 07 draft. Would the Pirates' money problems still be enough to drive him away from Boras?

3. If either Strasburg or Green fall to us, and this is the most important question: will MacPhail allow Jordan to take the bait? Hasn't he said in the past that he wouldn't have drafted Wieters and that he doesn't want to deal with Boras?