One question everyone is pondering in every Draft room is an annual query: Who is going where?
It’s often hard to ascertain what each team is going to do when it’s time to make their first selection, but this year it seems more difficult than most. That starts at the top of the Draft, where a day before the first round began, it was still unknown who the Houston Astros would be taking No. 1 overall. While the Astros officially put the candidate count at five, many in the industry felt it was down to two possibilities Sunday: Stanford University right-hander Mark Appel or toolsy Georgia high school outfielder Byron Buxton. Buxton and Appel were ranked first and second, respectively, in MLB.com’s Top 100 Draft rankings, a list based on talent, not their projected place in the Draft.
“There is no unanimous or consensus guy,” one scouting director said. “Buxton is probably the best position player prospect, but he is a high school guy, which makes for risk. Last year was unclear because there were six or seven guys who were worthy. This year is unclear because there are no true 1-1 caliber talents.”
There does seem to be a general consensus of the names, if not the order, of the other likely top 10 selections. Joining Appel and Buxton on that list are high schoolers Carlos Correa, Albert Almora, Max Fried and Courtney Hawkins. The college set being discussed at the top of the round are Kevin Gausman, Kyle Zimmer, Mike Zunino and Andrew Heaney, with certain teams discussing Deven Marrero and Chris Stratton as well.
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
Jim Callis at BA, Jonathan Mayo at MLB.com, Keith Law at ESPN.com (paywalled)
The best explanation I've seen of the new (very strict) draft slotting rules came from (excellent) Red Sox beat writer Alex Speier. Speier on the 2012 draft rules, "Exploring the New World Order":
it does? oh, hey, it does. I like the baseball draft. I wish there was a little bit more hype so I knew more about the players, although not to NFL levels
Not that anyone would do that, and not that it would be a good idea, but is that an option?
The problem, of course, is that then you absolutely must sign the guy, or you have no draft at all. It's a huge, crazy risk.
Probably would never happen, but I'm not sure anyone has any idea how the new bonus system is going to change things.
The NFL draft hysteria is crazy. What a media hype driven circle jerk. Just once I'd like to see them review their grades from 3 years ago to see how all their predictions panned out.
There would be quite a bit of due diligence involved to make sure that those guys really would sign for late-round bonuses. These cheap picks would have a lot of leverage themselves - they would know that you need them to sign in order to leverage their projected slot bonus for other signings, and they could force you to spend more than you planned.
The only thing in football that reeks of more BS than "draft experts" is the never-ending and exponentially growing legion of "recruiting experts". If these guys were right, Clemson would be a Top 15 program every year and Oregon would be lucky to earn an occasional trip to the Sun Bowl.
The article addresses this. Apparently, some teams tried to register their interns for the draft. MLB said no.
I would be all for that as long as they had to let the intern play at least a season of rookie ball if they wanted.
17: Yes, it does.
I'm very curious as to how teams will try to play this and don't have a feeling one way or the other yet as to what they'll do.
Are we getting a draft open thread up later today or is this it? I know the article says there is no clear #1, but Appel seems like it to me. He may be one of the weaker #1s in recent history, but he's a head above the rest this year IMO.
I like Buxton and Correa a lot and either may end up being a lot better than Appel, but Appel seems like a pretty decent bet to be a mid-rotation starter in the big leagues at the least, while Buxton and Correa may never get out of AA if they don't bulk up a bit.
That was his draft board, not the mock draft.
There is a difference between where a player is drafted and where a prognosticator believes they fall as to talent level.
Sickels had Appel as #4 but everyone, including Sickels has him going #1.
Correa is likely the best talent but he's 4-5 years off whereas Appel starts in AA next year.
What college pitcher doesn't have a huge workload though? People are making a big deal about Appel's 149 pitch outing, but did he regularly go well over 100? I really don't know. He's got a good frame and a nice easy delivery so I wouldn't be all that concerned. Tim Lincecum had a very heavy workload in college with a smaller frame and he's avoided injury thus far. Pitchers get hurt, I'm not sure we can project injuries for 21 year old kids (Mark Prior has a flawless delivery! He'll never get hurt!)
The 2006 Draft: Six Years Later
At the end of the article, there are links to previous years' versions.
The Lovely Bride is past the easy child-bearing years. But we agree that if we produce another son his name will be Stryker. That name just drips testosterone, doesn't it?
Keon Barnum
Douglas Baxendale (I want to add, "The Third").
Skye Bolt
Ty Buttrey
Kenneth Diekroeger
Zachary Eflin
Max Fried
Jeffrey Gelalich
Patrick Light
Brett Mooneyham
Stephen Piscotty
Cody Poteet
Tanner Rahier
Alec Rash
Almon Roache
Clate Schmidt
Matthew Smoral "of the story"
Hunter Virant
Walker Weickel
Patrick Wisdom
I wish them all well. The last thing baseball needs is another Billy Williams.
If this draft is as weak as claimed and assuming Garcia hasn't gotten injured, he shouldn't make it past the No. 10 or No. 15 pick. But I haven't seen Garcia's name on a BA mock draft, while Sickels just threw him at No. 100 with a "hard to rank" comment.
31: Me too, Joe. When I heard of Garcia's supposed demands I was flabbergasted. That ship (giant bonus) has sailed...
This is very likely ignorant on my part, but one of my first thoughts when I saw that was 'do Onelki and company have people to pay off (for getting him out of Cuba)? Not saying I actually believe that, but the thought was there.
BA ranked him as, what, the #81 talent in the draft? (EDIT: #83) Not where he'll get picked, but how good he is.
So, what's the deal with Cuban defectors now? Are they included in the Draft? If Onelki goes undrafted (unlikely I suppose), he can sign with whomever he likes, right?
Isn't this ranking mostly meaningless, though? No one really has a clue about him. Where would they have ranked Cespedes in last year's draft?
Most Cubans gain residency in a country (I thought it was usually the DR) where players aren't draft eligible. I don't know what happened to Garcia, but apparently his Nicaraguan residency was falsified.
No doubt. Garcia has been out of Cuba for about two years, so he's easily six figures in debt to various agents, smugglers, etc. He's on his second or third agent, and his first agent told the Miami New Times* in April that he'll be suing Garcia as soon as Garcia signs an MLB contract. (*That was a wild article; not sure if it was ever posted here.)
I didn't see this. I wonder if it was based on recent reports or if it was more of a "we gotta put him somewhere" type of thing. But barring injury or a 50-pound weight gain (neither of which would be surprising after all the downtime), there's no way that there are 80 better players than Garcia in this draft.
How is it meaningless? You're just ranking him based on scouting reports against draftees. I think people said Cespedes would have been a top five pick. People are saying Soler would be a top five pick. People are obviously not saying Garcia would be a top five pick. There's not as much to go on, but scouts have seen him.
I'd guess that Garcia's a bit more exposed to scouts than Cespedes was, by virtue of playing competitively outside of Cuba (not that either was totally unknown or as well vetted as domestic talents). Here's part of the Garcia BA bio (available to subscribers):
I'm agnostic on the dude, personally - never seen him play.
Garcia was arguably better than Soler at the junior level, and he has a lot more game experience. I'd take Soler over Garcia because of age, position, etc., but there's no way there's a 75-slot separation between the two.
Unless it's been happening under the radar, I haven't heard anything about Garcia throwing for scouts during the run-up to the draft. I would have thought the strategy would be to try to get drafted as high as possible, but that doesn't seem to be the case. All I can guess is that Garcia's reps didn't fully understand the new rules when the $7M demand was floated, or they have a side deal in place and are trying to slide Garcia to that team.
I don't see Stroman lasting to #24, though I know a number of mocks having him going around that point.
Second fearless prediction: this helps large-market teams over the long run.
I doubt there will be many negotiating flameouts. For all the bluster about signability and whatnot, the overwhelming majority of high draft picks end up signing contracts. The money is just too big now. Players and agents talk tough before the draft, but it's a rare player who marches off to college because he was "only" offered $1.85M instead of the $2M he wanted.
Giolito might end up being the latest example. In the span of two weeks, he's gone from being definitely college-bound to apparently open to turning pro, if not wanting to turn pro.
A lot of people believe this, but I disagree. These new rules make it very difficult for large-market teams (or at least winning large-market teams) to snag premium players late in R1 or in the comp round.
I think the overall effect will be rather neutral in regards to large market v. small market.
This. The real effect will be to take money away from drafted players and soon international FA's and put that money into the owners' pockets.
Anyway, I think we'd all agree that this is about ownership keeping not spending money on amateur talent.
Did you pet the puppy on your way in?
I disagree. If a smaller-market team decides to go way over its cap one year (and by "way over" I mean 5 whole percent over"), it doesn't get a 1st round pick at all the next year. If this becomes a regular thing - and I think it very well could for the teams who pick 1 and 2 and maybe even a little further back - that #15 pick that, let's say, a Yankees team coming off of an off year had becomes a #11 or 12. If an equal number of teams are avoiding top talent because they value the next year's draft too much, you could conceivably get a #8 talent with that pick.
On the flip side, a larger market team with a bunch of picks may well decide to just scotch the next year's draft anyway, go way over their cap and "lose" picks that they weren't going to have anyway because they plan on signing FAs the next season.
College and HS ball still produce prospects which are much more raw compared to the NFL due to the differences in the games, of course, and so it wouldn't be nearly as big a deal as if football did this, but for clubs like Kansas City and Pittsburgh, who really ought to be going hog-wild on the draft, snapping up as many guys that they can get pre-FA value from as possible, this is still, I think, going to have a deleterious effect on them, particularly when viewed in conjunction with the new international players' cap.
<gods>
No. I was too busy being charmed by Willie Starfellow.
I don't see this ever happening. Only a few small market teams were spending big before the caps were in place, why would they forfeit picks in order to spend big now?
I think those "lost picks" carry over into the next year then. I could be wrong. Der probably knows.
until 2001, there were no first-name Tanners ever in OB, now there are 22
This is a similar sort of arrangement to when the terms of a collective bargaining agreement restricts new workers from becoming full union members. Some of the auto unions are entering into a structured deal like this now. It's the entrenched parties agreeing to screw over the newcomers.
Not true, Joey Meyer's real name was Tanner Joe Meyer. :)
I've heard of Billy Joes, Bobby Joes but never Tanner Joe.
EDIT: Added smiley cuz I sounded snarky.
I would assume that if someone tries this, they'll change the rules so that the lost picks carryover to the next year. (If it doesn't already say that.) Of course, that's probably illegal, but Bud will growl at them and whoever it is will go along with it.
While this is true in its limited way, it presents too narrow a universe, doesn't it? Of course, there is no alternative for present day money, but there are plenty of college baseball experiences and degree opportunities that an owner must compete with, right? Maybe with choices 1-15 or so, 3 years of college experience and progress toward a degree isn't enough of a lure, but what about someone drafted fairly high who believes that they can enhance their draft position substantially with 3 years of college and another shot at the draft?
Yes, but one bad Appel don't spoil the whole bunch.
There's significantly less reason, now, for high schoolers to turn down big money, because there's a practical cap on bonuses. At least when Wade Townsend turned down the offer in 2004, he could imagine a club busting out $10M and a major league contract. Now that simply won't happen.
Oh, that's what it was.
I might be misremembering but wasn't Jameis Winston once believed to be a guy who would choose baseball but now it's assumed he will play college football instead?
you need to retune your sarcasm meter, Sam
he could always pull a Brandon Weeden
Sorry. Been ears deep in the Jim's Lab Notes thread. I'm a bit woozy.
Some recent video of him working out and throwing has hit the web. I haven't watched it, but allegedly he looks good.
I figure any team that signs him should probably just go ahead and try to schedule a pre-emptive Tommy John surgery. I'm hoping he and Fried price themselves out and don't sign.
Kitchen appliance for those who can't afford a Sirloin Browner.
I forget the specifics, but something was posted here a few weeks ago regarding some initiative of MLB's to promote college baseball. Could well be that they want college to compete with them more, and be where most players go through. Let them cost the schools money to run through their programs rather than the teams via the minor leagues.
52/lost picks: don't know, sorry.
[] Bud Selig praising the new CBA and labor peace
[] Tommy Lasorda sighting
[] Awkward retired ballplayer representing his team that doesn't quite seem to know what he's supposed to do
[] Harold Reynolds calls a player a "gamer" or "winner" because he doesn't know anything about him
[] Mitch Williams refers to when he was drafted or played baseball
[] Scott Boras reference
[] Awkward interview with 18 year old potential draftee
Selig has negative stage presence.
(Carlos Correa, a shortstop from PR picked first. BA had him #7 w/ SD)
Local media will skewer the Astros if local boy Appel does good, but I gotta say, Correa has the much higher upside. Ballsy pick from Luhnow.
It phrucking moves. Just when we've said what needs to be said about Correa, the Twins have picked Buxton.
No Mel Kiper Jr or Chris Berman?
If you're saying its because of race, that's absurd. Some compare him to Eric Davis as well.
I have the complete opposite reaction and disagree with you on the speed. There is no need for all this time between picks since they can't be traded, and in this year's NFL draft the picks were coming in faster than the analysts could talk about them. A few years ago this was literally a conference call that went lightning fast. Now it's a dragged out TV event.
You got somewhere to be? I don't mind learning a bit about players I know little about. It would help if they did, you know, give us information on these players rather than cliches.
YES YES YES.
Also, let me say that I approve of Correa for the Astros. Strange to see them doing smart things...
And Torii Hunter. And Reynolds just dropped an Adam Jones, too.
I don't watch the NFL draft anymore since I live overseas (I wouldn't be watching tonight's draft if it wasn't a holiday tomorrow) but from the past years I was under the impression that most teams took up the whole 15 minutes. If they're actually making more than four picks an hour then that's great.
Also, Zunino?
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main