Keith Law's Latest Mock

[Stotle]

This isn't the NFL or NBA, so teams can't trade up to get someone. The only downside I'd say there is to letting the proverbial cat out of the first round bag is if the player doesn't fall to you and you have to go with another - conceivably - unwanted player. There could be some hurt feelings, but that's about it.

...

Unless you're saying that a team would draft the guy you want, rather than the guy they want, just to keep you from getting him. Or, a team would change their scouting report on a player based on hype you put in the press. If teams actually did either, I'd guess they're not very good at drafting in the first place.

I don't agree with much of your post, except for the fact that obviously there are strategical differences from the NBA/NFL draft. The rest, I think, isn't digging deeply enough into the issue.

Knowledge means more than just about anything in the baseball draft. Having an idea of what other draft boards look like help you determine whether or not your valuations are in close proximation to the MLB universe, on the whole. Also, there is gamesmanship in working out deals.

Let's say PIT gets a deal in place with Tony Sanchez. They can go to Crow and say "We are happy with some other options, but you would be our #1 choice. This is the ballpark we're thinking about -- does that mesh with the money you are looking for." That's overly simplistic, but those are the type of considerations to keep in mind.

Likewise, disinformation can help players fall farther then they should. Remember some crazy Baseball AMerica article that was posted here earlier in the season? It said scouts were putting Skaggs way up their draft board and that Matzek's value was falling. Riiiiiiight. I said it at the time of the article, it makes strategic sense for scout to take one start with "meh" results from Matzek and try to get word out that he wasn't as good as expected. It doesn't make any sense to actually tell the media what your draft board is.

I think the bolded above is overly simplistic, but yeah that is what a good scout/organization would do. I don't think it works -- and I think if you read into what Jordan is saying when he notes "I don't try to match my board up with [baseball AMerica]." he is essentially saying "Baseball America gets their info from scouts and I don't trust that scouts are giving the press their honest, and unabashed, take on players.

[Arthur_Bryant]

That last sentence really can't be overstated with regards to all mocks by the experts -- I don't know why a team would tell the press who they are actually targeting so that the press can turn around write an article about it.

I don't know about the scouting game in particular, but as a former journalist I can tell you that journalists would be in bad shape if people only spoke when it's in their best interest.

People in all walks of life gab and gossip and bulls*!t to reporters all the time. They do it because they hope to get a little info in return, or because it makes them feel important, or because they have a deeper agenda, or because they want to curry favor, or because they're p!ssed off at their employers, or because they've had a couple of drinks, or just because it's fun.

Seriously, one of the most important attributes of a journalist is being the kind of person that other people want to talk with.

Also, in my personal experience, baseball as a sport and MLB in particular is a gossipy environment.

Anyway, I have no problem believing that Law is hearing things from people who would be better off keeping their mouths shut.

[crawdad]

I don't know about the scouting game in particular, but as a former journalist I can tell you that journalists would be in bad shape if people only spoke when it's in their best interest.

People in all walks of life gab and gossip and bulls*!t to reporters all the time. They do it because they hope to get a little info in return, or because it makes them feel important, or because they have a deeper agenda, or because they want to curry favor, or because they're p!ssed off at their employers, or because they've had a couple of drinks, or just because it's fun.

Seriously, one of the most important attributes of a journalist is being the kind of person that other people want to talk with.

Also, in my personal experience, baseball as a sport and MLB in particular is a gossipy environment.

Anyway, I have no problem believing that Law is hearing things from people who would be better off keeping their mouths shut.

I will say this though . . . the current regime in Baltimore is a lot tighter than the last one.

[Stotle]

I don't know about the scouting game in particular, but as a former journalist I can tell you that journalists would be in bad shape if people only spoke when it's in their best interest.

People in all walks of life gab and gossip and bulls*!t to reporters all the time. They do it because they hope to get a little info in return, or because it makes them feel important, or because they have a deeper agenda, or because they want to curry favor, or because they're p!ssed off at their employers, or because they've had a couple of drinks, or just because it's fun.

Seriously, one of the most important attributes of a journalist is being the kind of person that other people want to talk with.

Also, in my personal experience, baseball as a sport and MLB in particular is a gossipy environment.

Anyway, I have no problem believing that Law is hearing things from people who would be better off keeping their mouths shut.

I generally agree with you, but this is more of an ongoing dialogue with people than leaking some info. I mean, if you were in charge of the draft with an organization, and every time you switched your board it ended up in a BA chat or Keith Law blog, wouldn't you want to reign that in?

I think Law is definitely talking to people -- I just wonder how useful/accurate the info is.

[Arthur_Bryant]

I will say this though . . . the current regime in Baltimore is a lot tighter than the last one.

No doubt about it.

[Arthur_Bryant]

I think Law is definitely talking to people -- I just wonder how useful/accurate the info is.

We'll see. The Sanchez thing really sticks out. This is the second time Law has him going to PIT, correct? If that comes to pass, we'll know that Law is wired in.

Or there may just be an agenda somewhere that we can't discern.

[Stotle]

We'll see. The Sanchez thing really sticks out. This is the second time Law has him going to PIT, correct? If that comes to pass, we'll know that Law is wired in.

Or there may just be an agenda somewhere that we can't discern.

I disagree. I think it shows that one of the guys Law talks to is giving him good info. He had Tate out of the first round, and now at 1:3. He had Scheppers/Purke in the top half of the 1st, now each out of the first.

This could all be correct at the time he reported it -- but that's an awful lot of fluctuation for me.

And, it ties back into the importance of information. If you have a supplemental pick (like the Mariners, Dodgers, White Sox or Angels), isn't it interesting and helpful to know that no one Law is talking to is looking at Scheppers or Purke? Pass on them in the middle of the 1st and still get a shot at them with your supplemental pick.

[bej6789]

With this latest mock -- I'm pretty sure the only thing you can determine is that after Strasburgh.... nobody has a clue.