SoxProspects News
|
|
|
|
Legal
Forum Ground Rules
The views expressed by the members of this Forum do not necessarily reflect the views of SoxProspects, LLC.
© 2003-2024 SoxProspects, LLC
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Home | Search | My Profile | Messages | Members | Help |
Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
|
Post by vermontsox1 on Apr 2, 2024 11:55:09 GMT -5
Red Sox will have a total draft bonus pool of $10,521,600. By pick: 1(12): $5,484,600 2(50): $1,846,400 3(86): $878,800 4(115): $630,900 5(148): $457,900 6(177): $351,100 7(207): $274,600 8(237): $219,900 9(267): $194,600 10(297): $182,800 www.baseballamerica.com/stories/2024-mlb-draft-bonus-pools-slot-values-for-each-team/
|
|
|
Post by thegoodthebadthesox on Apr 2, 2024 11:59:25 GMT -5
Red Sox will have a total draft bonus pool of $10,521,600. By pick: 1(12): $5,484,600 2(50): $1,846,400 3(86): $878,800 4(115): $630,900 5(148): $457,900 6(177): $351,100 7(207): $274,600 8(237): $219,900 9(267): $194,600 10(297): $182,800 www.baseballamerica.com/stories/2024-mlb-draft-bonus-pools-slot-values-for-each-team/ So roughly the same pool as last year despite the two fewer picks, will be a smaller class this year but the money is there to move around for a few high level guys.
|
|
|
Post by vermontsox1 on Apr 2, 2024 19:38:45 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by thegoodthebadthesox on Apr 2, 2024 20:47:53 GMT -5
Am I reading it incorrectly or is that chart wrong? The teams are off, looks like they sorted a column and the rest didn’t go with it.
|
|
|
Post by Underwater Johnson on Apr 2, 2024 22:26:11 GMT -5
Am I reading it incorrectly or is that chart wrong? The teams are off, looks like they sorted a column and the rest didn’t go with it. I think the left column is individual pitchers and the right column (which overlaps the left slightly) is team stats.
|
|
|
Post by thegoodthebadthesox on Apr 2, 2024 22:27:23 GMT -5
Am I reading it incorrectly or is that chart wrong? The teams are off, looks like they sorted a column and the rest didn’t go with it. I think the left column is individual pitchers and the right column (which overlaps the left slightly) is team stats. Oh yeah I just hadn’t clicked into the actual tweet lol good call
|
|
|
Post by 1toolplayer on Apr 3, 2024 10:56:46 GMT -5
There is no room for nuance in this logic, even in this day and age? College players are moving faster, and the system + current 40-man roster gives good short and long term coverage at most positions, if not all of them. If ever there was a time for a team to prioritize a position, this would appear to be it. Not to mention it’s a great opportunity for Breslow and co. to infuse arms they personally ID’d, rather than the arms left over by their predecessor. Now, if Santucci is best arm available at 12 and they have him graded as a late first, I get not reaching too much for an arm. But assuming they have arms they like somewhat close to best player available, I’d hope they prioritize pitching every time. Given the recently draft and development history, and how Breslow has already mentioned a desire to infuse the system with pitching talent, I agree with all of this. I understand the general principle of Player> Profile, I just don't fully agree with that as I would with the "best player available" axiom. Player profiles generally are tied to bonus potential, and teams are certainly considering that as part of their draft process. If you find a player that carries conviction from the scouting staff and fits a profile you can reasonably accommodate from a bonus standpoint, then how is the profile not part of the criteria which helps you stack your draft board? NC State C Jake Cozart would be a great pick in the 1st round IMO. Profile wise, they took a similar player in Teel in a similar spot last year. Would the profile over player warrant any discussions in this case? I think earlier in this thread I jokingly said, TINSTAAP, and wanted no pitching.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Apr 3, 2024 11:06:55 GMT -5
]Given the recently draft and development history, and how Breslow has already mentioned a desire to infuse the system with pitching talent, I agree with all of this. I understand the general principle of Player> Profile, I just don't fully agree with that as I would with the "best player available" axiom. Player profiles generally are tied to bonus potential, and teams are certainly considering that as part of their draft process. If you find a player that carries conviction from the scouting staff and fits a profile you can reasonably accommodate from a bonus standpoint, then how is the profile not part of the criteria which helps you stack your draft board? NC State C Jake Cozart would be a great pick in the 1st round IMO. Profile wise, they took a similar player in Teel in a similar spot last year. Would the profile over player warrant any discussions in this case? That's a specific player, though. You're not talking about Cozart as an abstraction, you're talking about him as a baseball player who is really good. That's a big difference than saying "the Red Sox should target a catcher" and THEN landing on Cozart, which is a wrong approach. Best player doesn't mean ignoring the profile entirely, it means that you don't lead with a profile to narrow down your pick. Like, if one guy is a better hitter and a first baseman only, and the other guy is a shortstop with a broader range of skills, you may determine that the second guy is better. But if you go in thinking "you need to draft a shortstop with a broad range of skills" then you miss a Tristan Casas, who wouldn't necessarily fit a standard exciting profile (other than being really good at hitting). I'll also say this - if the way you grade players means that you're never landing on pitchers (which is what's happened with the Red Sox in the last several seasons), then that needs to be re-evaluated as well. But even still, the above post about how the Red Sox needs to specifically target high-velocity pitchers in rounds two and three... that's MUCH too profile-focuses, specific, and limiting.
|
|
|
Post by 1toolplayer on Apr 3, 2024 12:05:34 GMT -5
]Given the recently draft and development history, and how Breslow has already mentioned a desire to infuse the system with pitching talent, I agree with all of this. I understand the general principle of Player> Profile, I just don't fully agree with that as I would with the "best player available" axiom. Player profiles generally are tied to bonus potential, and teams are certainly considering that as part of their draft process. If you find a player that carries conviction from the scouting staff and fits a profile you can reasonably accommodate from a bonus standpoint, then how is the profile not part of the criteria which helps you stack your draft board? NC State C Jake Cozart would be a great pick in the 1st round IMO. Profile wise, they took a similar player in Teel in a similar spot last year. Would the profile over player warrant any discussions in this case? That's a specific player, though. You're not talking about Cozart as an abstraction, you're talking about him as a baseball player who is really good. That's a big difference than saying "the Red Sox should target a catcher" and THEN landing on Cozart, which is a wrong approach. Best player doesn't mean ignoring the profile entirely, it means that you don't lead with a profile to narrow down your pick. Like, if one guy is a better hitter and a first baseman only, and the other guy is a shortstop with a broader range of skills, you may determine that the second guy is better. But if you go in thinking "you need to draft a shortstop with a broad range of skills" then you miss a Tristan Casas, who wouldn't necessarily fit a standard exciting profile (other than being really good at hitting). I'll also say this - if the way you grade players means that you're never landing on pitchers (which is what's happened with the Red Sox in the last several seasons), then that needs to be re-evaluated as well. But even still, the above post about how the Red Sox needs to specifically target high-velocity pitchers in rounds two and three... that's MUCH too profile-focuses, specific, and limiting. I think we pretty much agree on most of this here and thought by specifically mentioning Carson Wiggins it wasn't profiling over player evaluation, rather than simply marrying the two.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Apr 3, 2024 13:12:16 GMT -5
Indeed. While the Frinkiac post did immediately follow yours, it was not meant as a response to that but rather to some of the rest of the discussion speaking more broadly about the type of players the team should be looking at (including at least one response about why Wiggins wasn't a fit specifically because of type).
Again, this is probably a bit a bit reductive, but: Good: Identifying the player who is good, and speaking about the traits that make that player good, traits which will almost inevitably fit a type; Bad: Identifying the type of player you like and then finding players who fit that.
|
|
|
Post by ramireja on Apr 3, 2024 22:30:42 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by vermontsox1 on Apr 4, 2024 9:22:34 GMT -5
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,907
|
Post by nomar on Apr 4, 2024 9:38:40 GMT -5
There’s a pretty noticeable dropoff after the 8-10 range (I’d say 10 if you are in on Rainer and Griffin, 8 if not). Unfortunate for the Red Sox. Hopefully we get a few late bloomers to stretch that out.
Honeycutt would be a disaster IMO, Cam Smith’s contact% and ISO are nothing special, King has an OPS under .900, and Brecht and Santucci continue to be wild. Going underslot for a guy with pitchability sounds good to me in this range currently. I go back and forth on Brecht and Santucci in my head, but it’s hard to find college pitchers that walked this many batters then went on to have good MLB careers.
Cam Caminiti, Yesavage, and Ryan Johnson are names that interest me and are available at Boston’s pick most drafts. Morlando is interesting as the best HS bat, but if it’s a 1B future I’m not sure that would be a great fit.
|
|
|
Post by cstalker14 on Apr 4, 2024 9:55:42 GMT -5
There’s a pretty noticeable dropoff after the 8-10 range (I’d say 10 if you are in on Rainer and Griffin, 8 if not). Unfortunate for the Red Sox. Hopefully we get a few late bloomers to stretch that out. As someone who is new to the forum but constantly following the draft I couldn't agree more. I would be surprised if the Sox passed on Rainer. Smooth swing, potential to stick at short, and a live arm. On top of that Eric Sondheimer of the LA Times has him at .510 BA on the season in a legit HS conference. Surprised Baseball America has him falling so far, probably doesn't crack the top 10 with the depth of the college class but still very real case to be picked by the Sox at 12.
|
|
|
Post by ematz1423 on Apr 4, 2024 9:57:15 GMT -5
There’s a pretty noticeable dropoff after the 8-10 range (I’d say 10 if you are in on Rainer and Griffin, 8 if not). Unfortunate for the Red Sox. Hopefully we get a few late bloomers to stretch that out. Honeycutt would be a disaster IMO, Cam Smith’s contact% and ISO are nothing special, King has an OPS under .900, and Brecht and Santucci continue to be wild. Going underslot for a guy with pitchability sounds good to me in this range currently. I go back and forth on Brecht and Santucci in my head, but it’s hard to find college pitchers that walked this many batters then went on to have good MLB careers. I'm not going to pretend to know much if anything about this draft or really any other draft prior to it. That being said, it always seems to me that there are at least an outlier/underslot type of pick in the top 10 of the draft so perhaps the Sox sitting at 12 will luck out and a guy on the top 10 of the big board will drop to them. Kind of like how Teel dropped to them last year.
|
|
|
Post by 0ap0 on Apr 4, 2024 10:50:25 GMT -5
Teel, Mayer, Groome, Ball... we've had pretty good recent record of picking up big names that weren't expected to be available at our slot.
|
|
|
Post by vermontsox1 on Apr 7, 2024 12:50:02 GMT -5
Nick Kurtz has been on an absolute tear since coming back from injury (8 HRs in the past 5 games, specifically). I think there's a clear tier of 8 players at the top of the draft right now (in no particular order):
Charlie Condon Jac Caglianone Travis Bazzana Chase Burns Hagen Smith Braden Montgomery Nick Kurtz JJ Weatherholt
Obviously a chance one of them slips like Teel did last year, but I think the Red Sox will probably be focusing on the next tier.
|
|
|
Post by larrycook on Apr 7, 2024 20:46:43 GMT -5
Tommy white if LSU, hitting .321 with 11 taters and more walks than strikeouts! Should be on the Red Sox radar .
|
|
|
Post by vermontsox1 on Apr 8, 2024 9:02:36 GMT -5
Tommy white if LSU, hitting .321 with 11 taters and more walks than strikeouts! Should be on the Red Sox radar . Good hitter, but the right-right first base profile is not something I would be getting excited about at 12. BA recently dropped him in their rankings down to #30.
|
|
|
Post by vmoss on Apr 8, 2024 19:39:35 GMT -5
There’s a pretty noticeable dropoff after the 8-10 range (I’d say 10 if you are in on Rainer and Griffin, 8 if not). Unfortunate for the Red Sox. Hopefully we get a few late bloomers to stretch that out. As someone who is new to the forum but constantly following the draft I couldn't agree more. I would be surprised if the Sox passed on Rainer. Smooth swing, potential to stick at short, and a live arm. On top of that Eric Sondheimer of the LA Times has him at .510 BA on the season in a legit HS conference. Surprised Baseball America has him falling so far, probably doesn't crack the top 10 with the depth of the college class but still very real case to be picked by the Sox at 12. welcome to site. always enjoyed draft/ future talk. great coverage here inc. vermontsox. thx.
|
|
|
Post by thegoodthebadthesox on Apr 9, 2024 18:26:53 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by pedroelgrande on Apr 9, 2024 22:15:43 GMT -5
Went scorch the earth on his return.
|
|
|
Post by markm7 on Apr 11, 2024 21:53:07 GMT -5
Any thoughts on the young lefty from Arizona that reclassified Cam Caminiti seems like a good target at 12 plus cheaper then college arm so hopefully enough left to go over slot high school bat in round 2
|
|
|
Post by thegoodthebadthesox on Apr 11, 2024 22:35:58 GMT -5
Any thoughts on the young lefty from Arizona that reclassified Cam Caminiti seems like a good target at 12 plus cheaper then college arm so hopefully enough left to go over slot high school bat in round 2 Why do you assume he’d be cheaper? If anything the reclass gives him a little extra leverage, assuming he’s reclassing to be young for the grade and not to catch up.
|
|
|
Post by pedroelgrande on Apr 11, 2024 23:57:51 GMT -5
He is one of the youngest in the class and won’t turn 18 until a month after the draft.
|
|
|