Taking a look at some early mock drafts...

[allstar1579]

The mock draft that has me puzzled is the one that has us taking Donovan Tate.

Don't get me wrong, I like Tate. I just find it hard to believe that we'd take him over Strasburg, White, Gibson, Matzek, Purke, Ackley or Green.

I seem to recall asking either Stotle, TyWright, Greg Pappas, or another one of our draft experts if Tate has the same upside as Heyward, and I was told, "no, they're not even in the same ballpark." Therefore, why on earth would we use our No. 5 pick on another "toolsy" ballplayer that plays a position we're already deep in? :scratchchinhmm:

That's what I was saying earlier, most of these mocks make absolutely NO sense. It's just people who find other mocks from like months ago, and then move the names around so it looks like they put tons of thought into it. Tate does have talent, but he's also very committed to playing football and baseball at UNC, not to mention he's not willing to give up football to play baseball even though he was being talked about as a top 5 draft pick? Not a fan.

[Stotle]

The mock draft that has me puzzled is the one that has us taking Donovan Tate.

Don't get me wrong, I like Tate. I just find it hard to believe that we'd take him over Strasburg, White, Gibson, Matzek, Purke, Ackley or Green.

I seem to recall asking either Stotle, TyWright, Greg Pappas, or another one of our draft experts if Tate has the same upside as Heyward, and I was told, "no, they're not even in the same ballpark." Therefore, why on earth would we use our No. 5 pick on another "toolsy" ballplayer that plays a position we're already deep in? :scratchchinhmm:

The problem is Heyward wasn't Heyward the year he was drafted. He was a top 10 talent, but not someone pegged to be one of the top 3 prospects in all of baseball. So it's kind of unfair to ask if Tate will be similar.

If you like tools, projection, bloodlines, and physicality then it's tough not to really like Tate. I can't imagine him as anything but a top 10 pick, particularly in a relatively weak class for hitters.

[JTrea81]

Tate is exactly the type of player we should be avoiding with our first round pick. We need solid baseball players that can step in within 1-2 years, not projects with tools that may amount to something in 4 years. Save those for the lower rounds.

The draft needs to be a pipeline to the majors if we aren't going to sign top (expensive) amateur talent from Latin America. It is one of the only ways we can restock the minors besides trades, and our trade chips aren't that plentiful.

[Stotle]

Tate is exactly the type of player we should be avoiding with our first round pick. We need solid baseball players that can step in within 1-2 years, not projects with tools that may amount to something in 4 years. Save those for the lower rounds.

The draft needs to be a pipeline to the majors if we aren't going to sign top (expensive) amateur talent from Latin America. It is one of the only ways we can restock the minors besides trades, and our trade chips aren't that plentiful.

See, the problem is that Tate isn't a "project". Where are you getting that? Because I said it's unfair to ask if he's likely to step in and be rated one of the top 5 prospects in all of baseball next year?

Now, I don't really disagree that there are five players I'd probably prefer, but "later rounds" is not where someone like Tate should be going...

[QBsILLEST1]

The one remaining problem I hear with Tate is that he is not a "pure hitter" and that his bat may be questionable. This to me is a red flag to draft someone like that in the top 5. Then again, I heard he performed well at one of the last showcases. But the Heyward comp is what you are hoping to get out of him once he focuses soley on baseball. With our pick at 5, Matzek continues to grow on me, Purke would make me happy, Crow and White would also make me happy. Drafting Green would probably not be bad, but just because we are seeing him struggle in crunch time (for him) I am really down on him. If we picked Tate, I would be disgusted, same with Gibson.....I am not sold on their lofty draft status-especially Gibson......

[allstar1579]

The one remaining problem I hear with Tate is that he is not a "pure hitter" and that his bat may be questionable. This to me is a red flag to draft someone like that in the top 5. Then again, I heard he performed well at one of the last showcases. But the Heyward comp is what you are hoping to get out of him once he focuses soley on baseball. With our pick at 5, Matzek continues to grow on me, Purke would make me happy, Crow and White would also make me happy. Drafting Green would probably not be bad, but just because we are seeing him struggle in crunch time (for him) I am really down on him. If we picked Tate, I would be disgusted, same with Gibson.....I am not sold on their lofty draft status-especially Gibson......

Tate's only real problem is that he is inconsistent. He will go 3-3 with a HR and a SB one day, and then go 0-3 K-ing on breaking balls the next. He's a great talent, and not a project. Avery was a project, not even a close comparison. I just feel like Tate needs to hone his focus and decide what sport he is going to play.

[crawdad]

Tate's only real problem is that he is inconsistent. He will go 3-3 with a HR and a SB one day, and then go 0-3 K-ing on breaking balls the next. He's a great talent, and not a project. Avery was a project, not even a close comparison. I just feel like Tate needs to hone his focus and decide what sport he is going to play.

So what aspect of his play do you think is inconsistent?

[hoosiers]

The problem is Heyward wasn't Heyward the year he was drafted. He was a top 10 talent, but not someone pegged to be one of the top 3 prospects in all of baseball. So it's kind of unfair to ask if Tate will be similar.

If you like tools, projection, bloodlines, and physicality then it's tough not to really like Tate. I can't imagine him as anything but a top 10 pick, particularly in a relatively weak class for hitters.

As I gain more experience with the draft, it is obvious that critics try too hard to say "this guys is a top five talent" or "this guy is not a top 10 talent". The guys that can play can play. The fact is that Heyward is showing strong plate discipline and power as a pro and that was pretty evident as soon as he signed. The critics under-rated Heyward, same with Wieters. Wieters showed in his first two weeks in Frederick that he could play pro ball as a catcher and that he would be a devastating hitter. For these two prospects, I don't understand what changed so much from the time drafted to their first days in pro ball - so I would conclude the critics missed.

Let's face - most of these top players are at similar talent levels and critics try so hard to be critical that they miss the projection on some guys.

[QBsILLEST1]

As I gain more experience with the draft, it is obvious that critics try too hard to say "this guys is a top five talent" or "this guy is not a top 10 talent". The guys that can play can play. The fact is that Heyward is showing strong plate discipline and power as a pro and that was pretty evident as soon as he signed. The critics under-rated Heyward, same with Wieters. Wieters showed in his first two weeks in Frederick that he could play pro ball as a catcher and that he would be a devastating hitter. For these two prospects, I don't understand what changed so much from the time drafted to their first days in pro ball - so I would conclude the critics missed.

Let's face - most of these top players are at similar talent levels and critics try so hard to be critical that they miss the projection on some guys.

Weiters was a good talent when he was drafted, but he seemed to show more power once he got going at Fredrick

[Stotle]

As I gain more experience with the draft, it is obvious that critics try too hard to say "this guys is a top five talent" or "this guy is not a top 10 talent". The guys that can play can play. The fact is that Heyward is showing strong plate discipline and power as a pro and that was pretty evident as soon as he signed. The critics under-rated Heyward, same with Wieters. Wieters showed in his first two weeks in Frederick that he could play pro ball as a catcher and that he would be a devastating hitter. For these two prospects, I don't understand what changed so much from the time drafted to their first days in pro ball - so I would conclude the critics missed.

Let's face - most of these top players are at similar talent levels and critics try so hard to be critical that they miss the projection on some guys.

Well, those labels ("top five talent" or "top ten talent") are misused all the time in that slotting is co-dependent on the other talents in the draft. When I say I don't see Tate as outside the top ten, I'm referring to 1) his general tool set being one you'd find in the top 10, and 2) particularly this draft class. A lot of times, particularly in the internet world, people just rely on brief tags.

Heyward didn't come out of no where, but the same his draft slot was a result of scouting/organizational decisions and not what the media had to write on him. Did scouts and draft offices miss? Yeah, it looks like it. But that's going to happen when you have other HS kids who are bit more refined and project well. Heyward made a really nice jump, and I can't say I think it's wrong that people had hitters like Moustakas or Vitters rated a little higher.

EDIT -- To be clear I was agreeing with you. Also, you'll see that scouts may raise their eyebrows at stat lines if they don't mesh with the tool set they see, but generally the amateur numbers are scrutinized to the extent they are on this board. The draft is about projection and very little else, when you get down to it.

[crawdad]

As I gain more experience with the draft, it is obvious that critics try too hard to say "this guys is a top five talent" or "this guy is not a top 10 talent". The guys that can play can play. The fact is that Heyward is showing strong plate discipline and power as a pro and that was pretty evident as soon as he signed. The critics under-rated Heyward, same with Wieters. Wieters showed in his first two weeks in Frederick that he could play pro ball as a catcher and that he would be a devastating hitter. For these two prospects, I don't understand what changed so much from the time drafted to their first days in pro ball - so I would conclude the critics missed.

Let's face - most of these top players are at similar talent levels and critics try so hard to be critical that they miss the projection on some guys.

Couple Things:

Who missed on Wieters?

People knew he was arguably the top talent if not the second best talent in that draft. Couple years later . . . both him and Price are considered top 2 prospects. Not sure who missed since everyone seemed to have thought that.

Heyward's adaptation to pro ball:

I guess what you are saying is that there is no way a player can improve in that short a period. That is true, but no one is claiming otherwise. It is the translation that sometimes misses. No one expected Heyward to be that good, but he was. The assessment trailed the reality in that situation. When an evaluator calls someone a top 5 talent . . . they do not under any circumstance state that these are the 5 best players in the draft. What they are saying is that based on the information we have, these 5 have the best probability to make it as a pro.

[Stotle]

Couple Things:

Who missed on Wieters?

People knew he was arguably the top talent if not the second best talent in that draft. Couple years later . . . both him and Price are considered top 2 prospects. Not sure who missed since everyone seemed to have thought that.

Heyward's adaptation to pro ball:

I guess what you are saying is that there is no way a player can improve in that short a period. That is true, but no one is claiming otherwise. It is the translation that sometimes misses. No one expected Heyward to be that good, but he was. The assessment trailed the reality in that situation. When an evaluator calls someone a top 5 talent . . . they do not under any circumstance state that these are the 5 best players in the draft. What they are saying is that based on the information we have, these 5 have the best probability to make it as a pro.

This is correct, all around, I think.

[allstar1579]

So what aspect of his play do you think is inconsistent?

I think it's his focus and interest. Physically there is nothing wrong with him, I just think he's young and hasn't focused enough attention to his game to get that down. Whether he is just not putting enough work in when he's not playing, or he just isn't in to the sport as much as he should be (I suspect football is his first love) something is off.

It's not like he can hit fastballs but can't hit breaking balls, because he'll have a great night one day hitting one, and then have a horrible night the next with the same pitches.

[crawdad]

I think it's his focus and interest. Physically there is nothing wrong with him, I just think he's young and hasn't focused enough attention to his game to get that down. Whether he is just not putting enough work in when he's not playing, or he just isn't in to the sport as much as he should be (I suspect football is his first love) something is off.

It's not like he can hit fastballs but can't hit breaking balls, because he'll have a great night one day hitting one, and then have a horrible night the next with the same pitches.

I guess what I don't understand is this. If a guy lacks focus or interest, why does it affect him one game and not the next. I'd understand if it affected him over the course of several games or a season, but for him to turn on or turn off seems peculiar to me in terms of at bats. Typically, in event based scenarios where you know you are involved like an at bat . . . even kids with ADHD can focus on singular events. Lapses in focus typically show up in the field where one often is not part of an ongoing play.

Being a stat guy breaking into a scout perspective, I often find scouting folk use poor language. I really find terminology like just saying a guy is inconsistent or that he lacks focus really are empty descriptors. I know you have something to say . . . it just seems like you are stuck in scout speak. Maybe Stotle can translate for me here.

I have not seen any of Tate, so I do not know his mechanics.

[allstar1579]

Couple Things:

Who missed on Wieters?

People knew he was arguably the top talent if not the second best talent in that draft. Couple years later . . . both him and Price are considered top 2 prospects. Not sure who missed since everyone seemed to have thought that.

Heyward's adaptation to pro ball:

I guess what you are saying is that there is no way a player can improve in that short a period. That is true, but no one is claiming otherwise. It is the translation that sometimes misses. No one expected Heyward to be that good, but he was. The assessment trailed the reality in that situation. When an evaluator calls someone a top 5 talent . . . they do not under any circumstance state that these are the 5 best players in the draft. What they are saying is that based on the information we have, these 5 have the best probability to make it as a pro.

Technically it happens all the time. Late round draft picks will put up big numbers unexpectedly. I attribute it more to "gamesmanship" or that "it" factor, whatever you want to call it. Some guys just do more with less natural stuff than others.