Your initial 2021 draft grade

[LookinUp]

I went C-, but recognize it could go from A to F.

Basically picked C- because the first two picks seem like solid high floor guys. Two of the best hitters coming out of college this year. 

I also like Creed and Heid in particular, and don't dislike any of the other picks necessarily. It'll come down to whether we can develop them just like any class.

But the lack of upside pitching is kind of remarkable. The good news is that with the Angels taking 20 pitchers, we can now trade for 4 of them to stock our system.

[Can_of_corn]

Just now, LookinUp said:

I went C-, but recognize it could go from A to F.

Basically picked C- because the first two picks seem like solid high floor guys. Two of the best hitters coming out of college this year. 

I also like Creed and Heid in particular, and don't dislike any of the other picks necessarily. It'll come down to whether we can develop them just like any class.

But the lack of upside pitching is kind of remarkable. The good news is that with the Angels taking 20 pitchers, we can now trade for 4 of them to stock our system.

I thought the plan was to trade pitching to the Angels?

[MDtransplant757]

5 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

I thought the plan was to trade pitching to the Angels?

They'll need outfielders too. Alex Cobb according to Fangraphs leads the team in pitching WAR at almost 2 and Jo Addell looks lost at the plate.

[Aristotelian]

I went with C. I don't follow the draft closely but seems like Cowser and Norby are fine picks in a draft that was thin at the top. Seems like the strategy was more "err on the side of signability" than a full underslot strategy?

 

[ChosenOne21]

36 minutes ago, Gentile4 said:

I give it an F. Elias apparently paid no attention to the myriad mock drafts and message board GMs. WTH, Mike.

Can't rep this enough. Exactly what I was going to post

[LookinUp]

5 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

I thought the plan was to trade pitching to the Angels?

Sure. You can trade pitching to them too, but you want as many of their arms back in return as possible.

[now]

B for just Because I trust the plan. I know that's a toxic phrase around here but the previous Plan was to draft pitchers and that didn't work out so here we are. 

At risk of broken-record, I'm on record for supporting the lower risk strategy of picking bats. It will be an extremely interesting case study to follow up on the Elias vs. LAA/D strategies (Position vs. Pitchers) over the next few years following this draft. 

College over HS also follows the pattern of taking lower risk, closer to finished product.

I like picking short-term progress to MLB-ready (college, senior, polished bats). I like going contact over loft (see B. McDonald's recent comments about the shifting balance: high loft > high heat > more contact). I like the data point of BBs > K's for hitters, and high K/H ratios for pitchers.

B is also for Bottom line, wait and see. Also, all the slot talk and calculations are Beyond me, which is fine, since it gets back to Bottom line anyway. Grow the Bats!

[NedFromYork]

I gave it a B. Cowser looks like a great bat and I like most of the bats selected, very good BB to K rates, high OBP, power.  There were a couple .260-ish hitters that I am not a fan of. The pitchers were mostly tall, big SPs which I like, but a couple of smaller guys and not a fan of taking somebody who is already a relief pitcher.

I prefer college players to high school so fine with that.

[MurphDogg]

I am disappointed in that I thought Cowser was more of an underslot pick than he apparently is. Not sure how I can blame that on Elias though. Fangraphs had him as their #6 prospect, so it was certainly a defensible pick as a non-underslot (or only a slight underslot). I am a fan of the next two picks.

I understand that some people prefer players with massive upside, but the floor on our top several picks is quite high. Hopefully we will have more upside guys coming as the international pipeline starts producing.

[MurphDogg]

1 hour ago, Frobby said:

And it’s not clear why we needed to save money by choosing Cowser over Lawler or Watkins, since we didn’t appear to choose any overslot guys today.

The obvious answer to that is that choosing Cowser over Lawler or Watkins didn't save as much money as we thought it would.

[Sydnor]

So I have it an F, but I probably should’ve given it a D. I am annoyed that they don’t seem to be spending their entire pool when everyone seems to agree that the draft is the cheapest and most efficient method of talent acquisition.

Basically, it’s just not the type of draft I enjoy. I just like high ceiling players and I don’t see a lot of it here. The draft generally seemed so risk averse that it was risky.

Mike is certainly smarter than me, so I hope the model makes him look brilliant and me look like a clown.

[billw76]

I'm gonna give it a D.

I don't mind the first 2 picks, and like Donta Williams as well, but overall the whole strategy this year was kind of a head scratcher.

Outside of Creed Williams, not one HS guy, and no real high upside guys, everyone seemed to be "safe" picks. 

Hopefully they have some high end guys lined up in the international period because I just don't see a whole lot of potential with this draft class.

[ScGO's]

I wonder how trustworthy a lot of the national rankings were, especially since baseball was difficult to scout, let alone play, during Covid.  Maybe these are guys the O's scouts and data guys were able to observe more, or gain more info on than others.  They all seem really interesting.  The extra Covid eligibility explains some of the older players, but perhaps they used that extra year to figure some things out and can advance quickly.

I also have a theory that the O's analytics department has identified the start of a trend towards a return of Tony Gwynn, Paul Molitor, George Brett type hitters.  Athletic, high average hitters that strike out less than they walk.  Hitters that can challenge the shift, put balls into play, make things happen.  Get on base, stay on base.  This will mingle well with the high OBP and power guys, which alone, result in too many K's.  I wonder if this draft is trying to get ahead of the curve on this potential change

I also wonder if they are trying to save a little money in this draft because they will most likely have the #1 pick in next year's draft.  Our spending will be much more next year if we decide to take the best overall player like we did in 2019.

[Chuck A]

I gave it an F.  For what seems like obvious reasons but my biggest concern is the overabundance of apparently mediocre/low upside outfielders early and often.  I think Cowser was a fine pick.  Norby was a good pick.  The glut of OF that are going to cause what last year's run on MI is causing now in the minors has the appearance of "maybe one of these guys will develop into a good utility guy".  Let's throw this SS prospect into CF so he can get enough ab's to evaluate.  Gee Wally, this stuff makes very little sense to me.

And pitching.  I'm not an expert.  But drafting college seniors and POST GRAD STUDENTS?  And where are the HS guys that need developing?  I guess they were all out of them at Pitchers R Us.  On the surface this looks HORRIBLE.  I have the feeling it is going to turn out that bad too (better not take 5 years to develop college SENIORS).  Next year the obvious choice is to scout the Retirement Homes for more Seniors.

[Moose Milligan]

Wow, the grades are all over the place.