2024 MLB Draft: Day Two and Three Roundup

The 2024 MLB Draft has concluded, and it’s time to make definitive judgments about which teams did the best and worst before many of the players have even signed their deals. Just kidding — while I do have a few team-specific thoughts below, this piece is more about what unfolded across the draft as a whole. I texted folks in the industry (scouts, executives, and agents) to see what they thought of the overall results, and if they noticed a continuation of broad industry trends or observed behavior specific to this year’s proceedings. I’ve incorporated some of their thoughts below.
Teams Leaning On College Contact Hitters
If there was a universal response from team personnel over the last couple of days about this draft, it was that, especially on Day Two, teams prioritized college hitters who had demonstrated bat-to-ball ability. Rutgers shortstop Joshua Kuroda-Grauer (A’s) and Texas Tech catcher Kevin Bazzell (Nationals) got things kicked off in the third round, and then players who either need a swing change, like Oklahoma State’s Zach Ehrhard (Red Sox, fourth round), or to get much stronger, like Eli Serrano (Mets, fourth round), were also frequent Day Two selections. There’s a growing number of teams that would rather have contact skills on board to start and then try to add or augment other stuff, like strength or swing mechanics, later. The general sentiment is that hitting is harder to teach. This isn’t universal (the Orioles took Vance Honeycutt in the first round), and I think it can easily be argued that having an up-the-middle defensive fit (especially the athleticism to play shortstop or center field) is every bit as innate and probably scarcer. Another variable that seems to have motivated this reasoning brings me to my second overarching theme…
The Changing Run Environment in College Baseball Has Made Power (and Other Traits) Tougher to Trust and Evaluate
There have been pieces written about this elsewhere, and it was a common refrain among team personnel during the lead up to the draft and after. Whatever is altering the run environment (there are some industry rumors/conspiracy theories about bat juicing in college baseball), it won’t affect whether or not a hitter makes contact. Hitting a baseball is often referred to as the hardest thing to do in professional sports, and as pitchers get better and better, finding guys who can actually do it is a league-wide priority. I do think we’re riding the asymptote of pitcher development as far as quantum leaps in technique are concerned and that hitter dev is starting to catch up, but orgs can still apply pitching dev methodology to arm after arm.
The Mariners’ Draft
This is the second year in a row that the Mariners’ pursuit of over-slot high schoolers meant they pivoted to older players earlier than other clubs. While their 2023 class yielded more young players because they had so many picks, this year’s Ryan Sloan selection in the second round (he could be more than $2 million over slot) led them to several 23-ish-year-old seniors and grad students on Day Two. Kansas reliever Hunter Cranton (upper 90s with plus-flashing slider — he’s going to move quickly), Oregon righty Brock Moore (moved into starter role late in the season and held 94-96), and two-way player Grant Knipp (one of the hardest throwers at the Combine, 95-97) were the more prominent of the six seniors they selected. I’ve written this before: There’s value in being the first team to start taking these guys because you get the best ones. Usually when you draft big-bonus high schoolers, you end up with a top-heavy class and are at risk of being light on depth. The Mariners avoided that.
We Just Had the Fewest High School Players Drafted, Ever
At least, within 20 rounds, excluding the five-round 2020 draft. Some of this is specific to the talent makeup of this class, which was light on high schoolers. You know the feeling you get when you first open a bag of chips and see how few are actually in there? That’s what is felt like scouting this high school class last summer.
There are other forces at play here as well. Player development is more costly now because of necessary changes made to how minor leaguers are paid and housed. MLB has slashed away 60 minor league affiliates from its clubs’ farm systems in response to the increase in per player cost, and also cut the draft in half, from 40 rounds to 20. A reduction in minor league roster spots and the lack of post-draft, short-season affiliates (the old Northwest, Appalachian, and Pioneer Leagues), where newly drafted college players often began their careers, creates a talent bottlenecking effect at the college level. Major League Baseball (note the capitalization — I’m referring to the business entity here) has an incentive to outsource player development to college baseball, and it’s a symbiotic relationship because the NCAA would love to have a more talented and watchable “product.”
I’ve asked people if the pull of NIL money in college is part of the equation, and while it certainly is as far as choosing a school and navigating the transfer portal is concerned, people with big league teams have consistently told me that the new money flying around college baseball hasn’t really impacted their ability to sign players. Colleges have offered some players a lot of money to transfer or stay at their school (the highest rumored amount is in the mid-six figures), but even if, say, Texas A&M is offering you $500,000 or so to stick around, if the Angels draft you in the third round, your bonus is going to be much bigger than that.
The Brewers’ Draft
The Brewers followed up on their high school-heavy 2023 draft with an even younger group this year, and it reveals an interesting strategy. Their first round pick, Braylon Payne, was generally seen as a second-round prospect. His bonus is likely to be well below the $4.5 million slot value of his pick, with some amount of the excess pool space diverted to the high school pitching prospects they selected in the second and Comp B rounds, New Jersey high schoolers Bryce Meccage and Chris Levonas. They also popped high schoolers in rounds nine and 10, and then took several on Day Three. Not all of these guys are going to sign but several of them will. Recall last year that Brewers got Cooper Pratt’s deal done for $1.3 million in the sixth round and then also signed multiple high schoolers for between $250,000-$550,000 on Day Three of the draft. Day Three picks don’t have bonus slots that reduce your team’s pool if the player doesn’t sign, so aside from a little opportunity cost (the college guy they’d have otherwise taken in round 14 or whatever), the Brewers can now negotiate with a bunch of higher-upside high school players between now and the signing deadline and decide what combination of bonuses and players gives them the best overall class.
Several teams do a version of this every year, but nobody does it to this degree. Whether it was precipitated by the nature of this particular draft class or just how the board fell in the first round (i.e. the Brewers didn’t like who was left on the board, so they pivoted to this strategy), we just don’t know.
High School Pitching Is The Rags
Is it possible teams are valuing high school pitching less and less as time goes on, and that we’ve now hit some kind of bottom? In a draft that was the deepest in high school arms among all the player demographics, the best one (in my opinion), William Schmidt, decided to pull his name out and go to LSU rather than be drafted. The next-best one, Cam Caminiti, had an “unexpected” fall and was the first high school pitcher chosen at pick 24 in a weaker draft. (I had Caminiti ranked 21st, so while my draft night chat was losing its mind that he was falling, he went about where I had him.)
The time it takes high school pitchers to develop (both from a technical perspective and from a durability standpoint) and the risk that they won’t (think about how different pitching once a week for two-and-half months is compared to a full-season pro workload) is influencing team behavior. And maybe less than “team behavior,” it’s affecting “decision-maker behavior.” You can’t play if you don’t have a seat at the table, and I do think more frequently the self-interest of executives is trumping teams’ best interests. If you have one or two years to save your job, why take a high school player who won’t be ready for another five? I don’t think every team or executive is behaving this way (Pittsburgh needs good big league hitters ASAP, yet they took Konnor Griffin and several other high schoolers despite the risk/time element because they believe in the talent), but the number is growing.
Groupthink on the Rise
Another common response from industry personnel this year was something like, “We are all making decisions looking at the same data and, increasingly, based on similar interpretations of that data.” This intersects with the college contact hitter point above. Teams are looking at fastball vertical approach angle and hitters’ contact and chase rates, and they have regression models that are fed the same data as their competitors’ models, in part because MLB (and its cheaper owners) wanted to avoid an arms race in this space. People in successful organizations diffuse to bad ones when the bad ones make a new GM or POBO hire, and the methodology of the successful orgs spreads to the crummier teams. This is happening faster than individual teams can make a leap in scouting or dev, and we’re approaching a sort of equilibrium where the competitive advantages will be mined from the interpersonal nooks and crannies of this process and the strategy with which teams pick. I think you could argue that orgs that are less inclined to adhere to data-based methods are in a better position now than ever before because the many data-driven teams end up competing for the same players. If there’s a science- or analytics-driven gap between teams, it’s in the way player development is considered as they determine their draft targets.
Eric Longenhagen is from Catasauqua, PA and currently lives in Tempe, AZ. He spent four years working for the Phillies Triple-A affiliate, two with Baseball Info Solutions and two contributing to prospect coverage at ESPN.com. Previous work can also be found at Sports On Earth, CrashburnAlley and Prospect Insider.
It is possible that the consensus that high school pitchers are a bad investment has gone too far, but I was looking at the high school arms taken in the top 3 rounds from 2017-2019 the other day and was stunned at how bad it all turned out. There were some very good outcomes like Grayson Rodriguez, Hunter Greene, and Mackenzie Gore but there are another 30 names who never turned into anything, and another 10 who are on the bubble of being busts too. I know that prospects have a much higher bust rate than anyone expects—like, well over half of the first couple more of rounds are considered busts—but this hit rate was something like 5 out of 44.
I’m of the opinion that a lot of the HS pitchers “falling” is that teams know that the risk is huge. These guys don’t pan out much, even if the upside can be huge. College pitchers already have had another 3 years to break so they have more info on who is fragile and who isn’t. At 18 it’s safe to assume most of them are going to break and you don’t know which ones.
I think the extra 3 years at College just give the pitcher and the human being more time to develop, and that’s more valuable to teams than the injury question.
Teams will still draft players who have injury concerns or who are coming back from surgery. But unless a HS pitcher is already very advanced, it’s going to take too much time and investment to get them Major League ready.
Thinking about the developmental timeline for a HS pitcher, a team might have to choose between 40-man rostering a pitcher they’ve invested 4+ years of development in or risk losing them just when they’re starting to come together as a prospect.
I also think Eric’s point makes a lot of sense – most execs don’t have the job security to plan 5+ years out, so why invest in players that will only help their successor (or their successor’s successor)?
The theory has limits.
Some orgs are managed by teams rather than a single guy and decision making is collective. Gives the org stability and continuity.
It lets them plan for the long haul regardless of who holds the titles and turnover isn’t necessarily a sign of failure. Some team members are poached and move up in a different organization.
These orgs include some of the consistently competitive teams that can afford to bet on high schoolers in the draft and teenagers in the international arena.
In fact, all teams bet big on teenagers all the time, knowing they may not be around if/when they arrive. It’s part of the job.
Chaim Bloom and Dave Dombrowski agree
Honestly, I think the time it takes pitchers to develop, esp HS pitchers, is as much of an issue as the bust rate. With the injuries & pitch counts, it takes them forever to make it.
Look at Detroit – Took Matt Manning in the top 10 in 2016. & it wasn’t really clear what he was until this year & it looks like a bust. Casey Mize was a college pitcher, but, was also pick 1.1 & he is in the same boat.
How many GM’s can wait 6-8 years for Top 10 picks to develop & still have a job? Hitters just don’t take as long..& even the busts, you know quicker so you know to move on from them.
Here’s the problem: We don’t have examples of successes to even know how long developing a starter out of HS “should” take these days.
Here’s what we know: All of the guys drafted between 2017 and 2019 period lost a year to the pandemic. Of them, Trevor Rogers was up in either 3 or 4 (depending on how you count), Grayson Rodriguez and Hunter Greene took 5 years, while Gore and Woods Richardson took 6.
There are a few other guys like Quinn Priester who are “ready” but not impressive in a similar time frame. Ryan Weathers is also sort of in that category although he was up in like 3 years. Shane Baz too.
But it’s hard to even say “it takes too long” when 85% of the guys are like Daniel Espino, Brennan Milone, JJ Goss, Matthew Thompson, Matthew Liberatore, Mason Denaburg, Cole Winn, Landon Leach, Caden Lemon…the list goes on for another 20 something names and half the time you stop and go “who is that?”
If this process is going to take 5 years and weed put, conservatively, half the talent pool why not offload the development responsibilities to the NCAA? Let Wake develop the kid for 3 years. If he’s still in tact at that time you pay a little more but the timeline is the same and all the risk is on an ACC team’s budget not yours.
Won’t work with international signings.
There’s more to talent acquisition than the draft.
Certainly the Reds seem to agree with that. It’s interesting because I have heard some teams think the Wake Forest pitchers are already maxed out and so they see less upside there and prefer taking guys from schools with more development to go. But even if you’re taking a pitcher from Boston College or Texas Tech you still have some information on what did and didn’t work (and the knowledge that they didn’t break yet in X innings)
For some picks there’s a “nobody succeeds” factor. Priester was the 18th overall pick in 2019. Among 18th overall picks from 2000-18, Corey Seager and Sonny Gray were massive successes, Brady Singer looks good, Ike Davis had a good season-and-a-quarter followed by an OK season and was replacment level after that, and the next best pick (by bWAR) was Erick Fedde with 4.1 bWAR, 4.4 of them this season. There’s 13/19 complete busts plus Fedde and Aaron Heilman.
I think that the Mariners had my favorite draft and the Brewers had one of the worst. It’s fair to say that with the draft being this volatile there’s a pretty good chance that the Brewers end up with the best class and the Mariners having the worst. But the over slot strategy that involves getting an FV45 in place of an FV40+ is typically going to yield a lot more value than one that involves getting an FV40 in place of an FV35+ two or three times.
The Mariners are good at finding late round pitchers and developing at least a serviceable reliever out of them, but their strategy was risky. If Sloan turns out to be Carlson 2.0, can they squeeze enough out of the senior signs to redeem the entire draft class? Kind of doubtful. Since they need stars more than depth, I approve the risk. But it is risky.
Seattle better draft than Cleveland? Look at all those later round HS arms Cleveland drafted (Joey Oakie, Cameron Sullivan, Chase Mobley) with money they saved on Bazzana-and that’s on top of Braylon Doughty
It’s basically the Brewers strategy but executed better, which is to say it’s a lot of lottery tickets.
It’s hard to say any team exceeded expectations when they have the first pick in the draft. But I think the Mariners’ selection of Cijntje (who I think is seriously underrated) and Sloan is very well done.
This macro-trend analysis is ok, but I think I speak for everyone when I say I came here for Eric’s takes on specific day 2 picks and was very disappointed.
I anticipated a team-by-team analysis, but Eric has written more words on prospects in the public sphere than maybe anyone (?), so I’m not complaining
yeah that would just be a ton of work to do for a lot of players that won’t come close to sniffing the big leagues. getting 100 players on the board before the draft is enough work in itself, I don’t really feel like I need to read blurbs for a few hundred more players taken on day 2 and 3.
Ironically this has been my advice regarding the lists forever: to not write up every minor prospect that requires sources from the DSL
Why is this ironic?
It’s like good advice that they just didn’t take.
Agreed I guess pay for Kiley’s take on the draft? It’s been underwhelming here, outside of the first round.
I am so glad that Eric gets to do what he wants when he covers all 30 teams, but in the end I’m not really sure it actually benefits anyone besides Eric. Which, hey I’m fine with that because I do love the analysis when we get it, but the slow trickle of prospect lists isn’t my favorite thing in the world, especially when it seems atypical compared to most other prospect writers.
Agree. Days 2 & 3 are the most interesting to me, because that’s when the most strategy comes in with signability and searching for hidden gems and so on. Everyone knows who the top guys are, we all know they’re going to sign, and honestly I don’t really care where they go beyond my team’s guy. It’s a first round pick. Everyone got a really good player that has more or less the same chance of working out. The rounds beyond are where it gets interesting.
Example, Gage Miller. I saw this kid play in summer ball a few years ago for the Amsterdam Mohawks and was stoked when he parlayed his offense success there to go from JuCo to playing for Bama and now being picked in the third round by the Marlins. The guy seems to have the “it” factor offensively and now we get to see how his game plays in the minors. There are tons of stories like Gage’s that we get to see play out and even if Eric didn’t go in-depth on individuals here in days 2 and 3, there is time enough in the days/months to come to dive into all the individuals making up this part of the draft.
You don’t speak for everyone and stop pretending you do.
I’m always astonished people chime in to bitch about not getting the free article they would write if they were to write one, but of course they didn’t and won’t write.
Unpopular opinion I am sure, and I don’t intend to sound whiny and negative, but I much preferred the format where you’d walk through team-by-team and give info from scouts contact and other industry contacts on the actual draft picks and how they are seen.
With so few players on the board, I loved the insight those blurbs and boxes provided.
Understood that I can search blogs and other locations for that sort of thing, but none with the level-headed truthfulness of this blog at FanGraphs.
Your article is strong, but the fact that teams leaned to contact hitters, shied away from high school players, opted to outsource dev to colleges as much as possible, and owners acting cheap were all pretty apparent trends to anyone who follows this stuff.
What I get from FanGraphs and Eric specifically, is what he likes to refer to as “dope.”
Just one humble opinion that that’s where I’d like to see the blog lean into more than this sort of summary style articles.
It’s Shark Week! Just kidding it’s Shark Monday.
I truly enjoy being a member of FG. While I don’t always agree with format or conclusion, the collective efforts of the various authors keep me informed and create new thoughts and questions. Of all the staff, it is my opinion the Eric seemingly gets the most pushback. I personally don’t think it deserved, but it’s immaterial to me. I do think the fact that Eric doesn’t respond often to his own material to member questions or the fact he is sort of has no Internet personality to know because even while listed as a Friday Chat, it it so random, that Eric, seemingly doesn’t want to know us. I think if he changes that he could be one of the more interesting staff members. Again, not to be taken as a shot, but to me my interactions here with other members and staff nourishes my feelings for FG.
Nah, he’s fine
Eric mentioned in the draft chat that he’d gotten some pretty abrasive people in the weekly chats which has why he has stopped doing them. I don’t think the writers owe us anything personally to get involved in the comments. If they want to, fine. If not, that’s ok too.
Agree. Especially if he’s having bad experiences with a few creeps. We don’t own the guy. He can keep his distance. The articles are still good.
If I’m asking Eric for something it’s going to be to get the lists out by February and not to spend more time chatting with me.
I’m thinking with Ice-T on board, the lists will be quicker.
“think about how different pitching once a week for two-and-half months is compared to a full-season pro workload”
Trust me, they pitch much, much more than that.
Eric, great and very interesting article for me , who doesn’t follow the ebb and flow of draft strategies from team-to-team or year-to-year.
Impatient but cheap owners and careerist FO people, and add groupthink, what could go wrong?