2017 Draft Thread

[Tedward]

Maybe I'm wrong, but I'm really nervous about guys who have up ticks in velocity and stuff because it seems like they then get drafted and they're back to their old velocity and old stuff far too often.

 

Who specifically are you talking about? Obviously for some players, an uptick in velocity is fleeting but it does happen to many HS kids who do maintain the velocity. It's a natural aspect of a teenager growing and maturing.

 

The other concern is players who are a bit older who have an uptick in velocity and then blow out their arm almost immediately (Rob Whitenack comes to mind).

 

Perhaps he was referring to Hayden Simpson, 1st guy that jumped to mind when I read his quote.

[CaliforniaRaisin]

John: Is the Nate Pearson Mets buzz legitimate?

Keith Law: I don’t believe they’d take him unless their board absolutely fell apart. Even then I’m not sure; you’re talking about a guy with an 80 fastball, but questionable secondary stuff and a screw in his elbow. Pretty big risk for top 20 … which isn’t to say it won’t happen, just that I think it’s unlikely to happen.

 

Dan: It seems that the Cubs are connected to Nick Allen. What are your thoughts on that match?

Keith Law: Not at 27.

[Tryptamine]

Maybe I'm wrong, but I'm really nervous about guys who have up ticks in velocity and stuff because it seems like they then get drafted and they're back to their old velocity and old stuff far too often.

 

Who specifically are you talking about? Obviously for some players, an uptick in velocity is fleeting but it does happen to many HS kids who do maintain the velocity. It's a natural aspect of a teenager growing and maturing.

 

The other concern is players who are a bit older who have an uptick in velocity and then blow out their arm almost immediately (Rob Whitenack comes to mind).

 

Perhaps he was referring to Hayden Simpson, 1st guy that jumped to mind when I read his quote.

 

Simpson and Stinnett were the ones I was mostly thinking of.

[Tryptamine]

John: Is the Nate Pearson Mets buzz legitimate?

Keith Law: I don’t believe they’d take him unless their board absolutely fell apart. Even then I’m not sure; you’re talking about a guy with an 80 fastball, but questionable secondary stuff and a screw in his elbow. Pretty big risk for top 20 … which isn’t to say it won’t happen, just that I think it’s unlikely to happen.

 

Dan: It seems that the Cubs are connected to Nick Allen. What are your thoughts on that match?

Keith Law: Not at 27.

 

Law sounds very sure of him self there. There's no way Allen would actually slip to their pick in the 2nd right?

[davell]

John: Is the Nate Pearson Mets buzz legitimate?

Keith Law: I don’t believe they’d take him unless their board absolutely fell apart. Even then I’m not sure; you’re talking about a guy with an 80 fastball, but questionable secondary stuff and a screw in his elbow. Pretty big risk for top 20 … which isn’t to say it won’t happen, just that I think it’s unlikely to happen.

 

Dan: It seems that the Cubs are connected to Nick Allen. What are your thoughts on that match?

Keith Law: Not at 27.

 

Law sounds very sure of him self there. There's no way Allen would actually slip to their pick in the 2nd right?

 

I don't think so. Supposedly both Toronto and Texas like him too. If we take Gonzalez at 27, I'd have to think its at a discount. Maybe even a VERY substantial one. As an example, if he's legitimately looked at as a top 75ish type talent....Slot at 75 is around 775,000.....You give him 1.2 and you're saving close to 1.2 from slot.

 

Which is why I was wondering about Carlson or trying to find out who else has bonuses of 2.5 and up that fall to us at 30.....Is Allen a guy like THAT? I kind of doubt it, based on his profile alone. If anything, I was kind of looking at him as a guy you may SAVE a bit on at 27.

 

At any rate, with Law signaling Gonzalez, he's heard SOMETHING. Gonzalez and Allen at 27 and 30 would be a surprise to me. Buuuuut, MAYBE they do that to save money on BOTH picks, and spend huge on pick 67? And grab 2 position players they're high on, in the process?

[CaliforniaRaisin]

 

Who specifically are you talking about? Obviously for some players, an uptick in velocity is fleeting but it does happen to many HS kids who do maintain the velocity. It's a natural aspect of a teenager growing and maturing.

 

The other concern is players who are a bit older who have an uptick in velocity and then blow out their arm almost immediately (Rob Whitenack comes to mind).

 

Perhaps he was referring to Hayden Simpson, 1st guy that jumped to mind when I read his quote.

 

Simpson and Stinnett were the ones I was mostly thinking of.

 

I think there's a difference in velo jumps for HS kids (and IFAs) who frequently see velocity increases in their teen years vs college kids who are already physically more mature. Obviously there are HS kids who can't maintain their recent velocity upticks in pro ball (Blackburn and Pawelek come to mind) but I think you get what I'm trying to say.

[craig]

Maybe I'm wrong, but I'm really nervous about guys who have up ticks in velocity and stuff because it seems like they then get drafted and they're back to their old velocity and old stuff far too often.

 

Who specifically are you talking about? Obviously for some players, an uptick in velocity is fleeting but it does happen to many HS kids who do maintain the velocity. It's a natural aspect of a teenager growing and maturing.

 

The other concern is players who are a bit older who have an uptick in velocity and then blow out their arm almost immediately (Rob Whitenack comes to mind).

 

Blackburn I think may have been a guy who was supposedly bumping up into the 93-94 velocity in the spring, but then never got back there again.

 

Whatever, Carlson sounds like a really interesting possibility. Seems like a lot of very interesting possibilities.

 

heh heh, I know it's probably super immature and juvenile and unsophisticated. But if the Cubs were to pick two first-round young non-college pitchers, I admit I'd think it was kind of fun to hope. Might have a little more upside than with the Zastryzny types.

[Regular Show]

 

 

Law sounds very sure of him self there. There's no way Allen would actually slip to their pick in the 2nd right?

 

I don't think so. Supposedly both Toronto and Texas like him too. If we take Gonzalez at 27, I'd have to think its at a discount. Maybe even a VERY substantial one. As an example, if he's legitimately looked at as a top 75ish type talent....Slot at 75 is around 775,000.....You give him 1.2 and you're saving close to 1.2 from slot.

 

Which is why I was wondering about Carlson or trying to find out who else has bonuses of 2.5 and up that fall to us at 30.....Is Allen a guy like THAT? I kind of doubt it, based on his profile alone. If anything, I was kind of looking at him as a guy you may SAVE a bit on at 27.

 

At any rate, with Law signaling Gonzalez, he's heard SOMETHING. Gonzalez and Allen at 27 and 30 would be a surprise to me. Buuuuut, MAYBE they do that to save money on BOTH picks, and spend huge on pick 67? And grab 2 position players they're high on, in the process?

 

Has K. Law definitely heard something though? I think maybe he's heard Gonzalez is moving up draft boards and that certain analytically-minded teams like the Cubs are showing interest in him. I could see us selecting him in the 2nd-round (Gonzalez). N. Allen probably won't be around if the Cubs don't select him at 27 or 30. Heck, some team might pick him before the Cubs select at 27...

[CaliforniaRaisin]

Longenhagen mock:

 

Fangraphs[/url]"]27. Chicago NL – M.J. Melendez, C, Westminster Christian (FL)

If any of the other college bats already mocked falls this far, I think they go here. Same for Trevor Rogers. Melendez plays a premium position and has high-end makeup, two Cubs priorities. And while prep catchers are especially risky,s the club can mitigate their class’s risk by taking a safer asset with the pick received from St. Louis for Dexter Fowler. They might also go over slot here with a pitcher like CA high schooler Michael Mercado and then cut a deal at 30.

[davell]

Longenhagen mock:

 

Fangraphs[/url]"]27. Chicago NL – M.J. Melendez, C, Westminster Christian (FL)

If any of the other college bats already mocked falls this far, I think they go here. Same for Trevor Rogers. Melendez plays a premium position and has high-end makeup, two Cubs priorities. And while prep catchers are especially risky,s the club can mitigate their class’s risk by taking a safer asset with the pick received from St. Louis for Dexter Fowler. They might also go over slot here with a pitcher like CA high schooler Michael Mercado and then cut a deal at 30.

 

That's the biggest surprise yet to me. And wow, I think I'd have to jump on Faedo, if he's sitting there at 27.

[Hrubes20]

Speaking of guys who hit in the Cape Cod League, Connor Wong hit .313/.354/.442 there last year as a C/IF. He has seen reps at C/3B/SS in college, was the starting SS as a freshman. His overall college line isn't crazy good but seems like a Cubs kind of player if he's there in rds3-4 or later.

 

He's on the list of positional players beyond the 1st round that I've looked into a bit, due to them seemingly "checking the boxes". A few of the others:

 

Brent Rooker, LF/1B - Mississippi State

Riley Adams, C - USD (Hell, they've already even drafted this guy)

Kevin Smith, SS - Maryland

Jake Mangum, OF - Mississippi State

Riley Mahan, 2B/OF - Kentucky

Ernie Clement, SS - Virginia

Zach Rutherford, SS - Old Dominion

MIchael Gigliotti, OF - Lipscomb

 

I could actually see a scenario where Rooker is selected with one of the first round picks as an underslot. He is the 1B this year for MSU, but was just fine in a COF spot last year.

[CaliforniaRaisin]

Scout.com mock: http://www.scout.com/mlb/scouting/story/1782760-2017-mlb-draft-mock-2-0?s=321

 

Besides 27 and 30, I'm including the Blue Jays' pick at 22 because it ties to the Cubs.

 

22. Toronto Blue Jays - Nick Allen, SS, Francis Parker HS (CA)

 

Everyone and their mother has the same information about the Cubs loving Nick Allen. Every single mock on the planet, except mine, has Allen at 27. When I got this information, it was specifically mentioned that the Cubs had to take Allen at 27 or the Blue Jays would take him at 28. Now, if you are the Blue Jays, the college class has a few similar arms, so no reason to jump and grab a specific one here. Allen is a love or hate player. If they like Allen enough to take him at 28, then they like him enough to grab him at 22.

 

27. Chicago Cubs - Drew Waters, OF, Etowah HS (GA)

I know every mock has Allen here, but I was told they are also very high on Waters and would strongly consider him if Allen was not available with pick 27. Waters is not as toolsy as Ramos, Adell, Thompson, or Beck, but still is a strong athlete who has the best future hit tool of the group. I don’t want to confuse anyone; Waters is a plus athlete, it’s just that the other group of four are the very peak of outfield athletes in this class.

 

30. Chicago Cubs - Clarke Schmidt, RHP, South Carolina

Schmidt, before the injury, had a floor of 18 in this draft. He could still go there. The Cubs have no concern with height and can take the risk on an injured pitcher who would have gone 10 to 15 spots higher, if healthy. I know I had this pick in the last mock, but the logic stays the same here for me.

[jersey cubs fan]

Scout.com mock: http://www.scout.com/mlb/scouting/story/1782760-2017-mlb-draft-mock-2-0?s=321

 

Besides 27 and 30, I'm including the Blue Jays' pick at 22 because it ties to the Cubs.

 

What little I've followed has seemed suspicious how much the Cubs were tied specifically to that player that it seemed to be an obvious plant and likely misdirection on somebody's part.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Scout.com mock: http://www.scout.com/mlb/scouting/story/1782760-2017-mlb-draft-mock-2-0?s=321

 

Besides 27 and 30, I'm including the Blue Jays' pick at 22 because it ties to the Cubs.

 

What little I've followed has seemed suspicious how much the Cubs were tied specifically to that player that it seemed to be an obvious plant and likely misdirection on somebody's part.

 

The Cubs love Gray and Appel, they're just glad they get to pick one at #2.

[CaliforniaRaisin]

Scout.com mock: http://www.scout.com/mlb/scouting/story/1782760-2017-mlb-draft-mock-2-0?s=321

 

Besides 27 and 30, I'm including the Blue Jays' pick at 22 because it ties to the Cubs.

 

What little I've followed has seemed suspicious how much the Cubs were tied specifically to that player that it seemed to be an obvious plant and likely misdirection on somebody's part.

 

The Cubs love Gray and Appel, they're just glad they get to pick one at #2.

 

On the other hand, their love for Almora and Benintendi/Happ before those drafts was well known and accurate.

[davell]

We're all over the place. We're being linked to lots of guys that seem to be 50-75 type of talents. Some are HS kids, so MAYBE they're not going to be under slot guys. But, it seems to me like they're trying to save some money at 27, to use on 30 or even 67.

 

I think Rooker makes a ton of sense at 27. So does Gonzalez. Or any of the HS bats, if they're willing to take under slot. Take the best college pitcher available at 30. Then, with the 500000-1M you saved at 27, you have 1.9-2M to spend on the best HS arm that's fallen, due to signing demands.

 

If you don't spend all the savings in the 2nd, spread it out over the 2nd and 3rd. Use slot for your 4-7 or 4-8 round picks, then senior signs in 9-10, or 8-10, to give yourself that extra 200-300k, to pair with your 5% money(close to 375k) and grab yourself a projectable top 200 arm, like we did with Clifton.

[Regular Show]

Scout.com mock: http://www.scout.com/mlb/scouting/story/1782760-2017-mlb-draft-mock-2-0?s=321

 

Besides 27 and 30, I'm including the Blue Jays' pick at 22 because it ties to the Cubs.

 

What little I've followed has seemed suspicious how much the Cubs were tied specifically to that player that it seemed to be an obvious plant and likely misdirection on somebody's part.

 

The Cubs love Gray and Appel, they're just glad they get to pick one at #2.

 

I agree that this seems like misdirection. I think the Cubs like N. Allen genuinely, but the degree to which I'm reading their heavy interest in mock drafts seems weird. Maybe they want Toronto or some other team to take him because they have interest in college pitchers? We're definitely taking a pitcher with one of our top 2 picks (maybe with both).

[davell]

Show, I'm not completely sold they'll take a pitcher at 27 or 30. I can see two bats, followed by pitching in 2-10. Or at least close to that, maybe a position guy sprinkled in.

 

Again, if they take position guys at 27 and 30, they'll save some money and still get at least one pitcher we'll be excited about for a while.

 

The more I'm thinking about it, I'm kind of talking myself into Rucker AND Gonzalez at 27 and 30. My guess is you'd save 1.5 mill from slot, or in that range. You could get a 2 mill pitcher at 67, then still get another 7 figure pitcher in the 3rd too.

 

Spread things out, give yourself more shots, in what's considered a weak draft.

[CaliforniaRaisin]

Show, I'm not completely sold they'll take a pitcher at 27 or 30. I can see two bats, followed by pitching in 2-10. Or at least close to that, maybe a position guy sprinkled in.

 

Again, if they take position guys at 27 and 30, they'll save some money and still get at least one pitcher we'll be excited about for a while.

 

The more I'm thinking about it, I'm kind of talking myself into Rucker AND Gonzalez at 27 and 30. My guess is you'd save 1.5 mill from slot, or in that range. You could get a 2 mill pitcher at 67, then still get another 7 figure pitcher in the 3rd too.

 

Spread things out, give yourself more shots, in what's considered a weak draft.

 

I think one underslot guy is enough if you want an overslot pitchers.

[Hrubes20]

Show, I'm not completely sold they'll take a pitcher at 27 or 30. I can see two bats, followed by pitching in 2-10. Or at least close to that, maybe a position guy sprinkled in.

 

Again, if they take position guys at 27 and 30, they'll save some money and still get at least one pitcher we'll be excited about for a while.

 

The more I'm thinking about it, I'm kind of talking myself into Rucker AND Gonzalez at 27 and 30. My guess is you'd save 1.5 mill from slot, or in that range. You could get a 2 mill pitcher at 67, then still get another 7 figure pitcher in the 3rd too.

 

Spread things out, give yourself more shots, in what's considered a weak draft.

 

I think one underslot guy is enough if you want an overslot pitchers.

 

It would have to be on the basis that the FO really likes those guys as well. It may be a gamble that either Rooker or Gonzalez would be there at 67, but it's dang near guaranteed that a high ceiling prep pitcher with a $2 million price tag will be there. They are every year. I absolutely get if someone wanted to go this route.

[craig]

I'm less confident than you guys about the availability and wisdom of going cheap in round 1 and spending it overslot in round 2. Maybe it's genius.

But if there's a $2M HS pitcher hanging at 67, I partly wonder why? Why didn't somebody else take that guy during picks 15-66? If there are ten prep pitchers with $2 price-tags, and 9 are already taken and one is left, might suggest guy isn't perceived as equal value to the previous 9.

 

Put differently, if a guy is firm in his pricetag, and if nobody drafts him at his pricetag, does that hint that he's not perceived as excellent value at that price?

 

Will be interesting. Obviously it's all about scouting and player evaluation, so if you can get your favorite prospects and save money besides in round 1, win-win. But it may be best to play it simple, to take the two best players you can in the first round, even if they come at or affordably over slot.

 

If you get two guys who you scouted among the top 20 guys in the draft with your top two picks, and if you scouted them wisely and they prove to really be two of the top 20 guys, you may do well to just keep it simple and get those two best, high-end guys that you can. There will still be potentially useful guys available for slot or modestly over slot in rounds 2 and 3.

 

hatch isn't a super-star, but he's a good prospect that signed for 3rd-round slot. Zagunis was slot and he's a good prospect.

 

Don't compromise too much on your 1st-round quality, is my keep-it-simple thought. But, of course I'll trust the analysis of the Cubs.

[Hrubes20]

I'm less confident than you guys about the availability and wisdom of going cheap in round 1 and spending it overslot in round 2. Maybe it's genius.

But if there's a $2M HS pitcher hanging at 67, I partly wonder why? Why didn't somebody else take that guy during picks 15-66? If there are ten prep pitchers with $2 price-tags, and 9 are already taken and one is left, might suggest guy isn't perceived as equal value to the previous 9.

 

Don't compromise too much on your 1st-round quality, is my keep-it-simple thought. But, of course I'll trust the analysis of the Cubs.

 

Because prep pitchers are ridiculously risky as a whole? It's a big gamble to devote that much of your draft spending pool on the most volatile asset in the mlb draft. There are also injuries, unrefined mechanics, projecting development of secondaries, body types, etc that of course come into play as well. I personally am with you on just taking the guys you have rated highest, assuming they fit the budget, but I get the thought that you could get 2 hitters you really like in the 1st round, save some money, and still get a high ceiling lottery ticket pitcher in the next round.

[CaliforniaRaisin]

I'm less confident than you guys about the availability and wisdom of going cheap in round 1 and spending it overslot in round 2. Maybe it's genius.

But if there's a $2M HS pitcher hanging at 67, I partly wonder why? Why didn't somebody else take that guy during picks 15-66? If there are ten prep pitchers with $2 price-tags, and 9 are already taken and one is left, might suggest guy isn't perceived as equal value to the previous 9.

 

Put differently, if a guy is firm in his pricetag, and if nobody drafts him at his pricetag, does that hint that he's not perceived as excellent value at that price?

 

Will be interesting. Obviously it's all about scouting and player evaluation, so if you can get your favorite prospects and save money besides in round 1, win-win. But it may be best to play it simple, to take the two best players you can in the first round, even if they come at or affordably over slot.

 

If you get two guys who you scouted among the top 20 guys in the draft with your top two picks, and if you scouted them wisely and they prove to really be two of the top 20 guys, you may do well to just keep it simple and get those two best, high-end guys that you can. There will still be potentially useful guys available for slot or modestly over slot in rounds 2 and 3.

 

hatch isn't a super-star, but he's a good prospect that signed for 3rd-round slot. Zagunis was slot and he's a good prospect.

 

Don't compromise too much on your 1st-round quality, is my keep-it-simple thought. But, of course I'll trust the analysis of the Cubs.

 

I think it depends on the individual draft. In 2014, there was no consensus at 1.4. It looks like the Cubs did well to go underslot with a good hitter in Schwarber and then use the savings on Cease, Steele and Sands (and by spreading their funds to three 7-figure prep arms, they mitigated some of the inherent risk of HS pitchers). But in other years, they picked their top guy and used up all their funds in the first round (Bryant, Happ, etc) with no complaints from us.

[davell]

I like the spread it out approach this year. Its considered a weak draft, I'd rather spread my chances out. Don't get me wrong, if you've got a guy that's inside your top 10 sitting at 27, you're probably taking him. Unless he's literally tiered in with 15 others.....

 

But, I can see under slotting at 27 and 30, leading you to finish the draft with 4 guys you have in your top 50, versus having 2 guys in your top 25.

 

Realistically, I think the FO will under slot 27. But, that money may very well go to 30.....Rucker or Gonzalez, or other hitter like Hrubes mentioned in his post, to pair with a Carlson or Rogers......

[CaliforniaRaisin]

[tweet]

[/tweet]