We are up. Who do you want for pick 81, and who do you think they will take?

[Big Mac]

Putting your entire draft on the success of two pitchers seems incredibly risky to me. 

[RZNJ]

2 hours ago, Sports Guy said:

But why take Rocker?  Why not take Lesko if you want the high end pitcher for underslot.

They clearly valued Rocker highly.  

Also, you don’t know that you are getting Porter.  I doubt they felt he would definitely be there in R4.  

 

I don't know the behind scenes on Porter.   Did teams know his price tag?   Why else would he drop past the first round?

Why Rocker over Lesko?    Neither player was valued by anyone as a #3 overall pick.   You love consensus.    No one had Lesko or Rocker in the top 10.    You don't want to believe Cowser was BPA in the Orioles mind at 1:5 last year but you are willing to believe that Rocker (who some had going late 1st round) was BPA at 1:3.   Ok.   I like your consistency!!!!!

[Sports Guy]

6 minutes ago, RZNJ said:

I don't know the behind scenes on Porter.   Did teams know his price tag?   Why else would he drop past the first round?

Why Rocker over Lesko?    Neither player was valued by anyone as a #3 overall pick.   You love consensus.    No one had Lesko or Rocker in the top 10.    You don't want to believe Cowser was BPA in the Orioles mind at 1:5 last year but you are willing to believe that Rocker (who some had going late 1st round) was BPA at 1:3.   Ok.   I like your consistency!!!!!

Lol.  You act like every situation is the same.  I mean, that’s just dumb.

Rocker has recently had shoulder surgery.  He hasn’t done much pitching over the last year and yet the Rangers took him 1.  They obviously valued him extremely highly.  They wouldn’t have selected him if they didn’t.  

They could have gotten other bats for similar money.  

Rocker was very clearly their guy.  I think it was the wrong decision but that’s clear.  

When you take a guy who has a very questionable injury history and who hasn’t pitched a lot in a year and you take him when all but 2 players are available to choose from, you are saying he is your guy.  

[Sports Guy]

46 minutes ago, Big Mac said:

Putting your entire draft on the success of two pitchers seems incredibly risky to me. 

Every draft is a risk.  Most of them produce nothing for 80+% of your draft.  If you absolutely love 2 players and feel they have high ceilings and you feel your development team fits with those guys, there is nothing wrong with doing this.

My personal issue with this is that Rocker is a gigantic question mark.   If he’s healthy and his velocity is consistently back, he could end up being a steal at that bonus.

[Big Mac]

28 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

Every draft is a risk.  Most of them produce nothing for 80+% of your draft.  If you absolutely love 2 players and feel they have high ceilings and you feel your development team fits with those guys, there is nothing wrong with doing this.

My personal issue with this is that Rocker is a gigantic question mark.   If he’s healthy and his velocity is consistently back, he could end up being a steal at that bonus.

I agree, this just feels like more than the usual draft risk.  Both pitchers they took have very risky profiles, even for pitchers. 

[Sports Guy]

1 minute ago, Big Mac said:

I agree, this just feels like more than the usual draft risk.  Both pitchers they took have very risky profiles, even for pitchers. 

No question.  High risk/high reward picks.  Look like a genius if it works and a fool if it doesn’t, especially if other guys tear it up that you could have had.

I think if it was Johnson/Green/Lee and Porter, it would be a better strategy.

[RZNJ]

44 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

Lol.  You act like every situation is the same.  I mean, that’s just dumb.

Rocker has recently had shoulder surgery.  He hasn’t done much pitching over the last year and yet the Rangers took him 1.  They obviously valued him extremely highly.  They wouldn’t have selected him if they didn’t.  

They could have gotten other bats for similar money.  

Rocker was very clearly their guy.  I think it was the wrong decision but that’s clear.  

When you take a guy who has a very questionable injury history and who hasn’t pitched a lot in a year and you take him when all but 2 players are available to choose from, you are saying he is your guy.  

Rocker likely would have been available mid 1st round but not at the Rangers next pick.   Instead of going for BPA and paying full slot they decided to go for Rocker (who they obviously like a lot) and save money to get two very good players instead of BPA at #3.   It's a good strategy but I highly doubt that Rocker was BPA.    If Rocker demanded slot money at 1:3, the Rangers probably don't take him.    They cut a deal with Boras pre-draft and said, hey we like Rocker but you know he isn't going this high unless we take him.    If Boras thought anyone else was taking Rocker top 5 or top 10, he wouldn't have settled for that much below slot from the Rangers.

There's less chance of Rocker being BPA on the Rangers board in 2022 than Cowser being BPA on the Orioles board in 2021.   The Rangers went "need" and got a 2 for 1 deal.

[Sports Guy]

Just now, RZNJ said:

Rocker likely would have been available mid 1st round but not at the Rangers next pick.   Instead of going for BPA and paying full slot they decided to go for Rocker (who they obviously like a lot) and save money to get two very good players instead of BPA at #3.   It's a good strategy but I highly doubt that Rocker was BPA.    If Rocker demanded slot money at 1:3, the Rangers probably don't take him.    They cut a deal with Boras pre-draft and said, he we like Rocker but you know he isn't going this high unless we take him.    If Boras thought anyone else was taking Rocker top 5 or top 10, he wouldn't have settled for that much below slot from the Rangers.

There's less chance of Rocker being BPA on the Rangers board in 2022 than Cowser being BPA on the Orioles board in 2021.   The Rangers went "need" and got a 2 for 1 deal.

I disagree.  First of all, it’s wrong to say they knew Porter was going to be there in the 4th round, which is what you are inferring.

And I don’t think they take Rocker, with his recent injury issues, if he wasn’t really high on their board.  They could have gone similar money and landed Lee.  Probably a little more to get Green or Johnson but still not too much more than they couldn’t have had Porter.

They took the guy they wanted.  If you want to believe they had a deal with Porter and the other 29 teams not to take him, ok.  I’m not believing that one personally.

[Jammer7]

32 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

Every draft is a risk.  Most of them produce nothing for 80+% of your draft.  If you absolutely love 2 players and feel they have high ceilings and you feel your development team fits with those guys, there is nothing wrong with doing this.

My personal issue with this is that Rocker is a gigantic question mark.   If he’s healthy and his velocity is consistently back, he could end up being a steal at that bonus.

I agree that Rocker is a big question mark. Not just from his past injuries, but that delivery needs some work to alleviate concerns of future elbow and shoulder problems. However, they cannot say they did not know what they were up against. I do believe Rocker shared his medical records with teams.

I think it was a bold move. If it was the Orioles that did this, not picking after 1-3 until the fourth round, I would be good with it. The handling of pitchers in this organization gives me more confidence that the arms would be developed properly. And yet there would still be a higher probability that Rocker never makes it near his ceiling. The Rangers are not known for their pitcher development. Maybe they are changing things down there, but I don’t see it as a good move for them. But it’s bold, for sure. They got two high upside first round picks, and a ton of risk. 

[NCRaven]

48 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

Lol.  You act like every situation is the same.  I mean, that’s just dumb.

Rocker has recently had shoulder surgery.  He hasn’t done much pitching over the last year and yet the Rangers took him 1.  They obviously valued him extremely highly.  They wouldn’t have selected him if they didn’t.  

I don't think that selecting Rocker says "he's our guy."  It says, "he's our guy that we can sign for $2.5 million (or so) under the slot value."  The Orioles said about Holliday "he's our guy."  Arizona said about Jones "he's our guy."  Texas said, "he's the best we could get at #3 that is this cheap."

[Sports Guy]

1 minute ago, NCRaven said:

I don't think that selecting Rocker says "he's our guy."  It says, "he's our guy that we can sign for $2.5 million (or so) under the slot value."  The Orioles said about Holliday "he's our guy."  Arizona said about Jones "he's our guy."  Texas said, "he's the best we could get at #3 that is this cheap."

Nah.  Why would they say this?  They have no idea who will be there in the 4th round, which was their next pick.

They got the guy they wanted.  He’s too big of a risk to think it was any other reason.  It’s not just, we got off cheap.  They could have paid Brooks Lee the same money.  They could have gotten Lesko or Berry or Parada or any other number of guys for that money or less.  Why did they take Rocker over all of them?

[RZNJ]

6 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

I disagree.  First of all, it’s wrong to say they knew Porter was going to be there in the 4th round, which is what you are inferring.

And I don’t think they take Rocker, with his recent injury issues, if he wasn’t really high on their board.  They could have gone similar money and landed Lee.  Probably a little more to get Green or Johnson but still not too much more than they couldn’t have had Porter.

They took the guy they wanted.  If you want to believe they had a deal with Porter and the other 29 teams not to take him, ok.  I’m not believing that one personally.

Porter signed almost immediately after the draft.   Do you think the Rangers had a verbal agreement with him pre-draft knowing they were taking Rocker and saving money at 1:3?    Did they know Porter would be there?    You can never be 100% but I think that was their plan.   If he hadn't been there they would have gone to plan B but I think Porter was plan A.

[RZNJ]

2 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

Nah.  Why would they say this?  They have no idea who will be there in the 4th round, which was their next pick.

They got the guy they wanted.  He’s too big of a risk to think it was any other reason.  It’s not just, we got off cheap.  They could have paid Brooks Lee the same money.  They could have gotten Lesko or Berry or Parada or any other number of guys for that money or less.  Why did they take Rocker over all of them?

Because  he's a pitcher and because he's closer to the majors than Lesko who was HS and just had TJ this year.

[Sports Guy]

1 minute ago, RZNJ said:

Porter signed almost immediately after the draft.   Do you think the Rangers had a verbal agreement with him pre-draft knowing they were taking Rocker and saving money at 1:3?    Did they know Porter would be there?    You can never be 100% but I think that was their plan.   If he hadn't been there they would have gone to plan B but I think Porter was plan A.

I think once Porter was there, they worked out a deal.  But I don’t think when they drafted Rocker they did so knowing Porter was going to be there.

[NCRaven]

1 minute ago, Sports Guy said:

Nah.  Why would they say this?  They have no idea who will be there in the 4th round, which was their next pick.

They got the guy they wanted.  He’s too big of a risk to think it was any other reason.  It’s not just, we got off cheap.  They could have paid Brooks Lee the same money.  They could have gotten Lesko or Berry or Parada or any other number of guys for that money or less.  Why did they take Rocker over all of them?

Okay, they said "he's the cheap option that we like the best."  It's pretty clear to me that they likely had something agreed to with both Rocker and Porter pre-draft and knew how much they would need to save with the 1-3 pick beforehand.  They "might" have saved that much on Lesko, Berry, etal., but they wouldn't have with Johnson or Green.