Kiley McDaniel: Alrighty my lunch is all set up and I’m ready to listen to selected things from you people
12:05
druidiful: You said to come yell at you, but you aren’t here yet!
12:05
Kiley McDaniel: I am now be thankful your punching bag has arrived, aggrieved internet citizen
12:05
Nat: What kind of player does Cole Tucker become? Is there enough power there for 15 HRS?
12:06
Kiley McDaniel: Raw power yes, game power maybe
12:06
Larry: Hey Kiley, thanks for the depth of info on the Braves list. Questions on two guys who weren’t listed — any update on the status of Matt Rowland, and is he a guy worth watching? Also, surprised no mention of Braulio Vasquez. I’m obviously scouting the statline, but I’ve been intrigued by him. Is he too small to be a factor?
Below is an analysis of the prospects in the farm system of the Atlanta Braves. Scouting reports are compiled with information provided by industry sources as well as from our own (both Eric Longenhagen’s and Kiley McDaniel’s) observations. For more information on the 20-80 scouting scale by which all of our prospect content is governed you can click here. For further explanation of the merits and drawbacks of Future Value, read this.
Acuna has taken an unusual path to becoming an elite prospect. He signed for $100,000 out of Venezuela in 2014, and less than a year later, the Braves knew they had something special. He had gotten more physical while also exhibiting both better-than-expected plate discipline and also lofty exit velocities. Many expected 2016 to be his coming out party — and, in fact, it was in the eyes of scouts who saw him. He had only 179 plate appearances due to injury, though, so he didn’t get a chance to put up the numbers to really draw attention. In 2017, Acuna made the leap from scout favorite and known toolshed to one of the top prospects in baseball.
Waltharius: Is there any update on Hankins’ injury?
12:04
Kiley McDaniel: Not really. It’s shoulder soreness, as expected and also rumored before the start where he walked off the mound. He’ll rehab it and probably be fine. Hopefully is back on the mound in like a month or two and has some time to prove he’s healthy. Don’t think it’s a long-term thing.
12:04
ECinDC: Fangraphs ranks Carter Kieboom a lot higher than other sites, what do you all see in him that others are missing?
Both Eric and I will be posting in-person scouting reports on draft prospects we see throughout the spring. And through summer, too. And the fall, also, for that matter. Here is my first dispatch from Florida. Other will follow from where I am currently — namely, the Dominican Republic. (See my twitter account for real-time updates.) Here’s Eric’s recap of his first week watching amateur action in Arizona.
There’s been a good bit of draft news since our rankings dropped, so let’s run down the news before I get into the games I saw last weekend.
As I first reported (with an assist from Eric), the No. 3 overall prospect on our preseason board, Georgia prep RHP Ethan Hankins, left a start in the first inning with an arm injury that was later revealed to be a sore shoulder. It’s believed that this is just a minor setback that will be resolved with weeks of rehab, which shouldn’t severely impact his draft stock.
Some scouts with whom I spoke before Hankins’ injury were mildly concerned that his debut ranked third behind behind those of Florida prep righties Mason Denaburg and Carter Stewart. (more on those two below.) News regarding Hankins’ injury helps to explain his ineffectiveness, though. He’ll have plenty of time to get healthy and back on track. Here’s to hoping it’s as minor of an injury as expected.
We lost two notable college arms — Texas Tech LHP Stephen Gingery (a second- to third-round prospect) and Florida State LHP Tyler Holton (a performer with solid stuff who didn’t sign in last year’s draft as an eligible sophomore) — to torn UCLs over the weekend.
Beyond that, some quick hit notes from around the country:
No. 2 on our list, Arizona prep 3B Nolan Gorman, hit an opposite-field homer in his team’s first action last weekend.
Eric saw Oregon State this weekend and will see them again, so he’s holding off on writing about them, but it sounds like 2B Nick Madrigal (No. 6 on our list) and RF Trevor Larnach (No. 29) met and exceeded expectations, respectively, on opening weekend.
No. 7 on our list, Stetson RHP Logan Gilbert, featured stuff that was down a tick, but he was effective anyway (and it’s early). Another college pitcher and No. 8 prospect, Ole Miss LHP Ryan Rolison, apparently had a tick better stuff in his debut, flashing 55-60s not only on all three pitches but also his command. One scout described it as “a top-five-pick performance.” I also heard some buzz that the debut of a third collegiate, No. 18 Auburn RHP Casey Mize, was as impressive as his line, and he has some top-10 pick momentum now as well.
No. 9 prospect, California prep SS Brice Turang, went deep after fellow California prep RHP Cole Winn (who would’ve been in the 30s of our list if we went a little deeper) exited the game. Winn was 90-95 and touching 96 mph when he faced Turang. Winn is also known for having one of the highest-spin curveballs in the class, behind Notorious RPM Carter Stewart
No. 23 on our list, Florida prep CF Connor Scott may already be making that Austin Beck-esque move up the board we mentioned in the draft rankings, hitting a homer earlier this week and continuing to grow on scouts with his wide base of standout tools. Another prep arm, No. 22 RHP Kumar Rocker from Georgia, was solid in his season debut, working 94-98 mph for three innings.
No. 19 on our list, Oregon RHP Matt Mercer met expectations in his debut outing, with the expected above average four pitch mix and mid-90’s velocity. We’ve also heard from some scouts that it appears both No. 17 on our list South Alabama CF Travis Swaggerty and Oklahoma RF Steele Walker (just missed the top 30) have added more loft to their swings. Both weren’t really homer threats last summer for Team USA but hit homers this weekend playing in the same tournament in Myrtle Beach. Swaggerty and Walker both have enough raw power to move up boards if they can successfully make and sustain this adjustment.
Among players who just missed the top-30 group, Connecticut LHP Tim Cate has some big believers, while others think he’s just a smallish reliever, with one scout reserving judgment on his debut saying he was “just fine.” Stanford RHP Tristan Beck was healthy (a big accomplishment for him at this point), and his stuff was mostly back, which could land him in the middle of round one if he can do that for the rest of the spring.
Also, Florida State RHP Cole Sands was into the mid-90s in his debut, and scouts are telling me I need to get in to see the Seminoles to check out their likely new Friday starter (taking Holton’s spot), 2018-eligible bats OF Jackson Lueck and C Cal Raleigh, along with 2019-eligible 3B Drew Mendoza. In what already appeared to be a banner year for talent in Florida colleges and preps, things keeps getting better.
Now, on to the guys I personally scouted last weekend:
Carter Stewart, RHP, Eau Gallie HS (FL)
In the draft-rankings blurb, we noted that Stewart’s curveball is his separator, with some scouts projecting it to a 70 on the 20-80 scale. If his 88-92 mph fastball from this summer can get into the mid-90s, however, he’ll likely rise into the early to mid-stages of the first round. In his season debut, his velocity was 91-94 mph for the whole three-inning outing, pitching in front of 12 of the 30 scouting directors by my count. This was because Denaburg (below) was going in the nightcap at the same field as part of a PBR tournament and, the next day, Florida, Stetson, and USF would all be featuring top-15 type arms within driving distance. Stewart’s curveball wasn’t its normal self, more 50 to 55 with a couple 60s mixed in at 78-82 mph. For a long-limbed teenage pitcher in his season debut, however, throwing a consistently sharp curveball is a tall order.
Kiley McDaniel: Leave your question here and I’ll be back at noon eastern to chat. See my twitter @kileymcd for my notes from the MLB Int’l showcase (July 2nd, 2018 eligible Latin prospects) this week and Carson tells me that my post with tons of draft info will be going up shortly.
12:04
Kiley McDaniel: Inception
12:04
Kiley McDaniel: whoa
12:04
Matt: This isn’t where I parked my Jeff Sullivan
12:04
Kiley McDaniel: You will be able to find him here next week and me in my rightful place next week!
12:06
He Hate Me: Given that pitchers have a higher injury risk than hitters, does it make sense to focus more on hitters in the draft and then trade some of your seasoned hitting prospects (some of whom might be blocked) for young pitchers that have proven to be durable in their first few seasons? This seems to be the opposite of what the Braves have done (closer to what the Cubs are doing?).
Kiley McDaniel: A few minutes late after being taken on a circuitous route by my dog, it’s Kiley chat
12:09
A big dumb idiot: *extremely seinfeld voice* Whaaaaats the deal with prospects
12:09
PAC-12 FAN: You seem lower on Toglia and higher on Rutschman than some other outlets (D1, BP) were this past summer. Obviously you can’t speak for them but do you have any idea on what you may dislike/like with these two prospects that other evaluators may not?
12:10
Kiley McDaniel: Didn’t think I’d get questions parsing the specific rankings of the 2019 MLB Draft list but here we are. Main difference here is Toglia (1B/RF, UCLA) is bat-only and doesn’t have huge power whereas Rutschman (C, Oregon State) has comparable, above average raw power and is a better athlete who can catch.
12:11
Geebs: Is this another chat dominated by prospect conversation? If so please tell us now so I can leave, I’ve had my fill.
12:12
Kiley McDaniel: This chat is what you make of it and it seems like you’re a Debbie Downer
Kiley McDaniel: Okay schedule is a good place to start here. Just recorded a podcast with Carson but it isn’t up yet so I guess I’ll break some news (?) that the top 100 drops Monday and there will be a whole week of top 100 related content.
12:08
Kiley McDaniel: The list is essentially done now, gonna lock it tonight, so I can talk in generalities about some players but don’t want to give too much away.
12:08
Kiley McDaniel: And since we’re blowing this out a bit and the Braves list is like 1/2 on the the top 100, that and the Yankees list got pushed back a bit but should both be coming soon after prospect week.
12:09
Kiley McDaniel: And sortable 2018/2019/2020 draft rankings drop the next Monday, so it’s a true 7-day week of rankings
Kiley McDaniel: Hello from sunny Orlando. I am prepared to chat with you.
12:03
Jared: Hi Kiley.
12:03
steev: Hi Kiley,
12:03
Kiley McDaniel: You guys are so formal, you can just skip to calling me biased next time
12:04
Alex: Hi Kiley, what are your thoughts on Cristian Pache’s ultimate offensive ceiling? Thanks!
12:06
Kiley McDaniel: He’s an interesting one. I’ve joked that he’s an LSU wide receiver athletically, so almost anything is possible in the long-term. More practically he needs to refine the approach and lift the ball a little more, but he’s also a 70 runner and if doesn’t improve at all he’s something like Kevin Pillar, which may not be what Braves fans want but that’s an everyday guy.
I noticed an underlying theme in both pieces I’ve written since coming back, along with many others written this offseason at FanGraphs. If you are a fan of a small- or medium-market team that will never spend to the luxury-tax line and thus always be at a disadvantage, do you want your team to try to always be .500 or better, or do you want them push all the chips in the middle for a smaller competitive window? In my stats vs. scouting article I referenced a progressive vs. traditional divide, which was broadly defined by design, but there are often noticeable differences in team-building strategies from the two overarching philosophies, which I will again illustrate broadly to show the two contrasting viewpoints.
The traditional clubs tend favor prospects with pedigree (bonus or draft position, mostly), with big tools/upside and the process of team-building is often to not push the chips into the middle (spending in free agency, trading prospects) until the core talents (best prospects and young MLB assets) have arrived in the big leagues and have established themselves. When that window opens, you do whatever you can afford to do within reason to make those 3-5 years the best you can and, in practice, it’s usually 2-3 years of a peak, often followed directly by a tear-down rebuild. The Royals appear to have just passed the peak stage of this plan, the Braves hope their core is established in 2019 and the Padres may be just behind the Braves (you could also argue the old-school Marlins have done this multiple times and are about to try again now).
On the progressive side, you have a more conservative, corporate approach where the club’s goal is to almost always have a 78-92 win team entering Spring Training, with a chance to make the playoffs every year, never with a bottom-ten ranked farm system, so they are flexible and can go where the breaks lead them. The valuation techniques emphasize the analytic more often, which can sometimes seem superior and sometimes seem foolish, depending on the execution. When a rare group of talent and a potential World Series contender emerges, the progressive team will push some chips in depending on how big the payroll is. The Rays have a bottom-five payroll and can only cash in some chips without mortgaging multiple future years, whereas the Indians and Astros are higher up the food chain and can do a little more when the time comes, and have done just that.
What we just saw in Pittsburgh (and may see soon in Tampa Bay) is what happens when a very low-payroll team sees a dip coming (controllable talent becoming uncontrolled soon) and doesn’t think there’s a World Series contender core, so they slide down toward the bottom end of that win range so that in a couple years they can have a sustainable core with a chance to slide near the top of it, rather than just tread water. Ideally, you can slash payroll in the down years, then reinvest it in the competing years (the Rays has done this in the past) to match the competitive cycle and not waste free-agent money on veterans in years when they are less needed. You could argue many teams are in this bucket, with varying payroll/margin for error: the D’Backs, Brewers, Phillies, A’s and Twins, along with the aforementioned Rays, Pirates, Indians and Astros.
Eleven clubs were over $175 million in payroll for the 2017 season (Dodgers, Yankees, Red Sox, Blue Jays, Tigers, Giants, Nationals, Rangers, Orioles, Cubs, Angels), so let’s toss those teams out and ask fans of the other 19 clubs: if forced to pick one or the other, which of these overarching philosophies would you prefer to root for?
As a small-market club, the Pirates have a limited margin for error to be competitive.
(Photo: Keith Allison)
If you’ve read any of the dozens of articles over the years trying to create a framework for player asset values (putting a dollar amount on a player’s value), you’re aware of the biggest weakness of this genre of article. Take a star player, run him through a marginal-value analysis, and you’ll be disappointed in what it says about his trade value. Before we jump into the Gerrit Cole and Andrew McCutchen trades, follow me down a thought-experiment rabbit hole.
Clayton Kershaw is the best pitcher in baseball and Steamer projects him as a six-win player next year. Using the roughly $9-10 million at which a win is currently valued on the open market, Kershaw is likely to produce something between $50 and $60 million of value next year; let’s call it $55 million. Would multiple teams bid that amount for his services on a one year deal? Probably yes, because there’s some surplus value at that salary for which the formula fails to account. It doesn’t consider, for example, either extreme payrolls (i.e. the Dodgers’ on one hand, the A’s on the other) or more critical spots on the win curve (moving an 87-win team to a 93-win team is worth far more revenue-wise than 65 to 71).
So what would the A’s bid? They had an $86 million payroll last year, and they obviously wouldn’t give nearly two-thirds of it to one player. Oakland’s value for Kershaw would likely be whatever the maximum is that they would pay for any player, but that number is much lower than what the Dodgers would spend, maybe $20 million. Granted, these are extreme cases, but it illustrates the limitations of using a one-size-fits-all dollar-per-win calculator in specific instances, even if it works fine in aggregate.
More Granular Valuation
I point all that out to illustrate the fact that players aren’t worth the same to every team. Kershaw’s value, on which we all basically agree, varies by $30-40 million from the A’s to the Dodgers on just a one-year deal. So wouldn’t it follow that the A’s and Dodgers would value other players differently, too?
