Archive for Prospects
Mock Draft 4.0: The Morning Of
With the MLB draft set to kickoff this evening, here is our latest mock, compiled using industry chatter from team personnel and player reps, our own in-person scouting, and educated guesses informed by how we believe individual teams have operated recently. For more information on the players mentioned below, head over to The BOARD, which we’ll continue to flood with player info over the next few days, as well as our first three mocks.
We’ll do one more names-only mock tonight just before the draft kicks off, and based on how we characterize the process surrounding a few of the picks, we expect some behind-the-scenes fireworks just before dinner time on the East Coast tonight.
1. Orioles – Adley Rutschman, C, Oregon State
Clubs still think there’s a real chance for a cut-rate option here, with Vaughn and Bleday the two leading candidates and Witt less likely. This crew keeps a tight lid on things, and may not call someone’s adviser to really get down to brass tacks until sometime late this afternoon. Even the advisers of those potential backup options don’t yet know if they’re going 1-1, or how to handicap it. Contact hasn’t been made with Rutschman’s reps for weeks, which is also to be expected to maximize leverage. We think a lot of the buzz here is being mentioned as posturing, and that the odds are high the pick is just Rutschman; it’s something like an 80% chance, but by no means a slam dunk. It’s worth noting that some of the concerns on Rutschman’s medical are more likely to be flagged by Baltimore given their specific medical staff. Read the rest of this entry »
The Untitled McDongenhagen Project: Draft Preview Pod
UMP: The Untitled McDongenhagen Project, Episode 16
This is the 16th episode of a sorta weekly program co-hosted by Eric Longenhagen and Kiley McDaniel about player evaluation in all its forms. The show, which is available through the normal FanGraphs Audio feed, has a working name but barely. The show is not all prospect stuff, but there is plenty of that, as the hosts are Prospect Men.
This episode is focused on Monday’s MLB Draft and our coverage of it, which is featured in the widget above and on THE BOARD.
Don’t hesitate to direct pod-related correspondence to @kileymcd or @longenhagen on Twitter or at prospects@fangraphs.com.
You can subscribe to the podcast via iTunes or other feeder things.
Audio after the jump. (Approximately 58 min play time.)
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Subscribe: RSS
Previewing the Prospects in the NCAA Regional Tournaments
Today the NCAA Baseball Tournament begins, which means you can tune in and cram for Monday’s MLB Draft by enjoying our country’s highest level of amateur baseball. While we think the entire tournament is worth checking out just for the baseball, we have compiled pro prospects playing in each regional below for readers to reference while they watch, and included some of our thoughts on those players. We’ve roughly ranked each regional in order of prospectyness. For more on these players, head over to THE BOARD. Seniors are indicated below by an asterisk, ages are on draft day of their draft class.
| Rank | Yr | Player | Pos | Age | School | FV |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3 | 2019 | Andrew Vaughn | 1B | 21.2 | Cal | 50 |
| 7 | 2019 | Nick Lodolo | LHP | 21.3 | TCU | 50 |
| 17 | 2020 | Heston Kjerstad | RF | 21.3 | Arkansas | 45 |
| 26 | 2020 | Casey Martin | SS | 21.2 | Arkansas | 45 |
| 51 | 2019 | Dominic Fletcher | RF | 21.8 | Arkansas | 40+ |
| 75 | 2019 | Isaiah Campbell | RHP | 21.8 | Arkansas | 40 |
| 80 | 2019 | Matt Cronin | LHP | 21.7 | Arkansas | 40 |
| 92 | 2019 | Korey Lee | C | 20.9 | Cal | 40 |
| 113 | 2019 | Jack Kenley | 2B | 21.7 | Arkansas | 40 |
| 135 | 2019 | Brandon Williamson | LHP | 21.2 | TCU | 40 |
| HM | 2019 | Jared Horn | RHP | 20.9 | Cal | 35+ |
| HM | 2021 | Patrick Wicklander | LHP | 21.4 | Arkansas | 35+ |
| HM | 2019 | Jacob Kostyshock | RHP | 21.4 | Arkansas | 35 |
| HM | 2019 | Cody Scroggins | RHP | 23.1 | Arkansas | 35 |
| HM | 2019 | Quentin Selma | 1B | 21.0 | Cal | 35 |
| HM | 2019 | Cameron Eden | CF | 21.2 | Cal | 35 |
| HM | 2019 | Brandon McIlwain | CF | 21.0 | Cal | 35 |
| HM | 2020 | Zebulon Vermillion | RHP | 21.6 | Arkansas | 35 |
| HM | 2020 | Adam Oviedo | SS | 21.5 | TCU | 35 |
| HM | 2021 | Christian Franklin | LF | 21.5 | Arkansas | 35 |
Horn and Williamson will face each other on Friday, while Lodolo is scheduled to throw Saturday. It sounds like Arkansas is also saving Campbell and Wicklander for later in the weekend, as their opening game is against the fourth seed in the bracket. This postseason could be a coming out party for any of the Razorback underclass hitters (Eric’s pick is Casey Martin) the way last postseason was for Adley Rutschman. We recommend eating at Arsaga’s at the Depot if you’re in town for this regional. Read the rest of this entry »
Eric Longenhagen Chat 5/31/19
| 12:16 |
: Good morning from Tempe. I’ve got regionals on the tube but may sneak out to Extended in about an hour, so I’ll try to move through your draft questions as fast as possible.
|
| 12:16 |
: Chances Vaughn can be serviceable at a position other than 1B?
|
| 12:16 |
: slim
|
| 12:16 |
: The mock mentioned Lodolo to Atlanta at 9 because it was a good value. Was that you and Kiley’s opinion, or do you think that is Atlanta’s opinion?
|
| 12:17 |
: both, we think, but I expect we’ll have a different name there Monday.
|
| 12:17 |
: Are the Tigers connected to Michigan LHP Tommy Henry in any way?
|
Swing Changers: Spurning College to Get Pro Development
It’s not a secret that baseball at every level is being changed by the information gleaned from advanced tech like TrackMan, StatCast, and about a dozen other platforms. There are examples of changes in swing plane, pitch grips, sequencing, and location from every team in the big leagues derived purely from this data. It’s also generally known that this progressive approach has reached into the minor leagues for many teams and is also spreading to amateur baseball. Because the pitching end of this march began early (PITCHf/x came about nearly a decade before we heard the term exit velo), progressive hitting knowledge has lagged years behind pitching, and now the fact that colleges haven’t fully embraced it is affecting the draft and what kind of talent gets to campus.
Eric and I have spoken with numerous scouts in recent weeks about a topic that came up innocently in our draft prep but that, when we dug deeper, appears to be indicative of a larger trend in the game. There are an unusual amount of high school position player prospects who are signable in the $250,000 to $500,000 bonus range. One crosschecker said his region normally has at most one prospect per year of this sort, and this year there are at least seven. Every other regional or national scout we’ve asked has confirmed that they’ve noticed the same thing, but none had a ready-made explanation for why it is happening. We put together a hypothesis, and got universal agreement that we were onto something.
Colleges Coach Hitters for College
Many, if not most, top collegiate hitting prospects need a substantive swing change right after they’re drafted to match what’s going on in pro ball. Last year South Alabama’s Travis Swaggerty (reduce effort/movement) and Wichita State’s Alec Bohm (extend arms/increase loft), our fourth and fifth prospects in the draft, most needed to modernize their swings. This year our 12th and 26th prospects, Texas Tech’s Josh Jung (more pull/lift/loft) and Missouri’s Kameron Misner (eliminate toe tap/improve timing), are the two prospects in greatest need of a swing change. It’s not every player, and some prospects I haven’t mentioned need less obvious adjustments, but this is also choosing from a group of the most elite tools and performances in the country.
You may ask why collegiate hitting coaches aren’t addressing these issues. A more fully actualized and pro version of these hitters would surely help their college team in the short term, right? Not necessarily. BABIPs are much higher in college because of the lower skill level, particularly on defense. It’s common for some top programs (especially on the west coast) to have middle-of-the-order batters bunt early in games, and since those bunts result in errors much more often in college, it’s a better strategic play than it is in the majors. An opposite field, line drive, and grounders approach also results in more hits than it would in pro ball while a groundball, at any level of baseball, is more likely to result in a hit than a fly ball. Read the rest of this entry »
Introduction to the 2019 Draft BOARD
The 2019 MLB Draft is upon us, and a few threads that help comprise the full, 40-round tapestry have piqued our interest. The individual players involved, and the pirate crew of scouts and analysts who shape their organizations’ futures are, of course, annual focal points of the process. If you’re interested in that sort of thing, then you’ll also want to check out our prospect resource, The BOARD, which has player rankings and reports for this year’s draft class. It will be updated continuously over the next few days. You’ll also want to refer back to the draft order, pick values, and bonus pool amounts, which can be found here. For the latest gossip, please enjoy our recent mock draft.
Rounds one and two of the draft begin Monday, June 3 at 7pm Eastern. Day 2 includes rounds three through ten and begins Tuesday at 1pm; the final thirty rounds begin Wednesday at noon.
As is the case every year, this draft has some deeper themes and details. Here we outline some of the things we find fascinating, or that individuals who play a role in this process (amateur scouting personnel and player reps) are talking about.
Strategy Trends
Forward Thinking Now Means Tools
During the Moneyball era, traditional, scout-centric teams took upside/tools, while progressive teams leaned on statistical performance and perceived safety. These days with showcase stats, TrackMan and other advanced tech, better understanding of biomechanics, draft models, and the rising cost of elite major league free agents, the progressive clubs now feel comfortable taking upside players just like the traditional teams did. Tools can be quantified to some degree (i.e. spin rates, velo, exit velo, etc.) and, especially when a progressive scouting org is also a progressive player development org, teams are confident they can shape those tools into performance even if the player in question hasn’t performed. It moves the group of players valued due to their performance — think big conference college players with strong peripherals — down the board board if they don’t have sufficient physical talent. The Dodgers and Yankees, who both also seem less inclined to care about pitcher injury, are two prominent examples of teams who operate this way. Read the rest of this entry »
Pre-Draft Farm System Rankings
With the team prospect lists wrapping up today, multiple top 100 types having recently graduated, and the draft coming early next week, it’s a natural time to take a snapshot of where things stand in terms of the game’s farm system rankings.
We’ve taken Craig Edwards’ values for prospects by tier and totaled up what each of the 30 clubs had in their farm system over the winter. We also have a “Now” ranking with graduated prospects taken out (see the sidebar here for a full list of graduates), as well as a post-draft number based on our valuations of what teams’ draft picks are worth (in other words, our expectation of what we expect them to sign). Orgs are ranked based on the “Now” ranking; the total number of prospects and average per prospect value are also from that “Now” figure.
| # | Team | Offseason | Graduated | Now | Count | $/Player | Post Draft | Pick Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Padres | $504 | $34 | $470 | 54 | $8.7 | $524 | $54 |
| 2 | Rays | $471 | $28 | $443 | 53 | $8.4 | $492 | $49 |
| 3 | Braves | $354 | $55 | $299 | 27 | $11.1 | $352 | $53 |
| 4 | White Sox | $278 | $0 | $278 | 30 | $9.3 | $336 | $59 |
| 5 | Astros | $295 | $22 | $273 | 38 | $7.2 | $303 | $30 |
| 6 | Reds | $263 | $0 | $263 | 29 | $9.1 | $311 | $48 |
| 7 | Twins | $250 | $4 | $246 | 43 | $5.7 | $291 | $45 |
| 8 | Blue Jays | $280 | $38 | $242 | 30 | $8.1 | $282 | $41 |
| 9 | Dodgers | $262 | $28 | $234 | 34 | $6.9 | $274 | $40 |
| 10 | Pirates | $226 | $2 | $224 | 35 | $6.4 | $270 | $47 |
| 11 | Angels | $219 | $0 | $219 | 31 | $7.1 | $256 | $37 |
| 12 | D’Backs | $201 | $0 | $201 | 32 | $6.3 | $272 | $71 |
| 13 | Indians | $199 | $0 | $199 | 30 | $6.6 | $230 | $32 |
| 14 | Marlins | $206 | $23 | $183 | 32 | $5.7 | $247 | $64 |
| 15 | Mariners | $196 | $21 | $175 | 24 | $7.3 | $213 | $38 |
| 16 | A’s | $169 | $0 | $169 | 30 | $5.6 | $200 | $31 |
| 17 | Brewers | $167 | $0 | $167 | 34 | $4.9 | $194 | $27 |
| 18 | Rangers | $158 | $1 | $157 | 37 | $4.2 | $209 | $53 |
| 19 | Tigers | $163 | $7 | $156 | 24 | $6.5 | $209 | $53 |
| 20 | Phillies | $151 | $0 | $151 | 34 | $4.4 | $183 | $32 |
| 21 | Cubs | $143 | $0 | $143 | 31 | $4.6 | $174 | $31 |
| 22 | Orioles | $135 | $0 | $135 | 32 | $4.2 | $217 | $82 |
| 23 | Mets | $155 | $28 | $127 | 23 | $5.5 | $166 | $39 |
| 24 | Rockies | $151 | $28 | $123 | 26 | $4.7 | $160 | $37 |
| 25 | Yankees | $123 | $0 | $123 | 38 | $3.2 | $161 | $38 |
| 26 | Cardinals | $156 | $39 | $117 | 35 | $3.3 | $151 | $35 |
| 27 | Giants | $112 | $0 | $112 | 29 | $3.8 | $154 | $42 |
| 28 | Nationals | $172 | $62 | $110 | 21 | $5.2 | $140 | $31 |
| 29 | Royals | $74 | $0 | $74 | 27 | $2.7 | $140 | $66 |
| 30 | Red Sox | $56 | $6 | $50 | 25 | $2.0 | $78 | $28 |
| Totals: | $6,279 | $426 | $5,854 | 968 | $6.0 | $7,187 | $1,334 | |
| Averages: | $209 | $14 | $195 | 32 | $240 | $44 |
The previous version of this org ranking from the end of the 2018 season can be found here. Below is the grid with the breakdown of prospects by FV and club, so you can see the shape of a system:
| # | Team | Value | Count | 70 | 65 | 60 | 55 | 50 | 45+ | 45 | 40+ | 40 | 35+ |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Padres | $470 | 54 | 1 | 3 | 8 | 4 | 3 | 5 | 20 | 10 | ||
| 2 | Rays | $443 | 53 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 5 | 2 | 9 | 5 | 20 | 8 | |
| 3 | Braves | $299 | 27 | 4 | 4 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 10 | 3 | |||
| 4 | White Sox | $278 | 30 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 5 | 2 | 10 | 7 | |||
| 5 | Astros | $273 | 38 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 4 | 7 | 8 | 13 | |||
| 6 | Reds | $263 | 29 | 2 | 4 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 13 | 5 | |||
| 7 | Twins | $246 | 43 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 4 | 26 | 5 | ||
| 8 | Blue Jays | $242 | 30 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 13 | 9 | |||
| 9 | Dodgers | $234 | 34 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 5 | 13 | 7 | ||
| 10 | Pirates | $224 | 35 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 16 | 7 | ||||
| 11 | Angels | $219 | 31 | 1 | 4 | 1 | 5 | 4 | 10 | 6 | |||
| 12 | D’Backs | $201 | 32 | 1 | 4 | 1 | 2 | 4 | 12 | 8 | |||
| 13 | Indians | $199 | 30 | 5 | 1 | 6 | 3 | 10 | 5 | ||||
| 14 | Marlins | $183 | 32 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 5 | 2 | 13 | 7 | |||
| 15 | Mariners | $175 | 24 | 5 | 2 | 1 | 4 | 9 | 3 | ||||
| 16 | A’s | $169 | 30 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 14 | 7 | |||||
| 17 | Brewers | $167 | 34 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 21 | 6 | ||||
| 18 | Rangers | $157 | 37 | 3 | 1 | 6 | 7 | 13 | 7 | ||||
| 19 | Tigers | $156 | 24 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 12 | 3 | |||
| 20 | Phillies | $151 | 34 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 4 | 2 | 10 | 13 | |||
| 21 | Cubs | $143 | 31 | 3 | 1 | 4 | 2 | 21 | |||||
| 22 | Orioles | $135 | 32 | 3 | 6 | 2 | 13 | 8 | |||||
| 23 | Mets | $127 | 23 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 10 | 4 | ||||
| 24 | Rockies | $123 | 26 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 5 | 11 | 4 | ||||
| 25 | Yankees | $123 | 38 | 1 | 3 | 7 | 3 | 19 | 5 | ||||
| 26 | Cardinals | $117 | 35 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 26 | 3 | |||||
| 27 | Giants | $112 | 29 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 6 | 11 | 7 | ||||
| 28 | Nationals | $110 | 21 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 8 | 9 | ||||
| 29 | Royals | $74 | 27 | 3 | 5 | 3 | 9 | 7 | |||||
| 30 | Red Sox | $50 | 25 | 2 | 5 | 14 | 4 |
There is some wiggle room in the team rankings, as you could argue that a team with a couple million dollars less in value, but with that value concentrated in many fewer prospects, actually has more trade value. As a thought exercise, you’d want a $100 million prospect more than 100 $1 million prospects, which this ranking would technically call equal. Exactly where that cutoff lies and what the discount rate would be for a multi-player package isn’t clear just yet. Would you need $120 million of value in two prospects to part with one $100 million prospect? How much would you need for a three player package? These are questions we plan on answering down the road.
There will be an update moving the FV of dozens of prospects right after the draft, and draftees who haven’t yet signed but who we expect to sign (essentially all top 10 round picks) will also be added right away. With that in mind, because THE BOARD will change in a significant way right after the draft, we wanted to capture how things looked both during the winter and in this pre-draft, pre-trade deadline moment. At some point soon after the draft concludes, we’ll have dynamic farm rankings on THE BOARD that will update whenever we change a pro prospect’s FV, which will happen frequently after this first update goes live.
Top 27 Prospects: Colorado Rockies
Below is an analysis of the prospects in the farm system of the Colorado Rockies. 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.
All of the numbered prospects here also appear on The Board, a new feature at the site that offers sortable scouting information for every organization. That can be found here.
| Rk | Name | Age | Highest Level | Position | ETA | FV |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Brendan Rodgers | 22.8 | MLB | SS | 2019 | 55 |
| 2 | Garrett Hampson | 24.6 | MLB | 2B | 2019 | 50 |
| 3 | Peter Lambert | 22.1 | AAA | RHP | 2019 | 50 |
| 4 | Ryan Rolison | 21.9 | A+ | LHP | 2021 | 45 |
| 5 | Colton Welker | 21.6 | AA | 1B | 2021 | 45 |
| 6 | Ryan Vilade | 20.3 | A+ | SS | 2022 | 45 |
| 7 | Tyler Nevin | 22.0 | AA | 1B | 2021 | 45 |
| 8 | Grant Lavigne | 19.8 | A | 1B | 2022 | 40+ |
| 9 | Terrin Vavra | 22.0 | A | 2B | 2021 | 40+ |
| 10 | Ryan Castellani | 23.2 | AAA | RHP | 2020 | 40+ |
| 11 | Riley Pint | 21.6 | A | RHP | 2021 | 40+ |
| 12 | Julio Carreras | 19.4 | R | SS | 2023 | 40+ |
| 13 | Helcris Olivarez | 18.8 | R | LHP | 2023 | 40 |
| 14 | Vince Fernandez | 23.8 | AA | LF | 2020 | 40 |
| 15 | Breiling Eusebio | 22.6 | A | LHP | 2021 | 40 |
| 16 | Jesus Tinoco | 24.1 | AAA | RHP | 2019 | 40 |
| 17 | Yency Almonte | 25.0 | MLB | RHP | 2019 | 40 |
| 18 | Ronaiker Palma | 19.4 | R | C | 2023 | 40 |
| 19 | Ryan Feltner | 22.7 | A | RHP | 2021 | 40 |
| 20 | Josh Fuentes | 26.3 | MLB | 3B | 2019 | 40 |
| 21 | Tommy Doyle | 23.1 | A+ | RHP | 2019 | 40 |
| 22 | Ben Bowden | 24.6 | AA | LHP | 2019 | 40 |
| 23 | Robert Tyler | 23.9 | A+ | RHP | 2019 | 40 |
| 24 | Fadriel Cruz | 18.5 | R | 2B | 2024 | 35+ |
| 25 | Ezequiel Tovar | 17.8 | R | SS | 2024 | 35+ |
| 26 | Eddy Diaz | 19.3 | R | 2B | 2023 | 35+ |
| 27 | Justin Lawrence | 24.5 | AAA | RHP | 2020 | 35+ |
Other Prospects of Note
Grouped by type and listed in order of preference within each category.
Vanilla Pitchability
Alfredo Garcia, LHP
Will Gaddis, RHP
Mitchell Kilkenny, RHP
All of these guys project to be able to take a turn in a rotation if needed, and some may cement themselves as backend starter types. Garcia is 19 and missing bats at Low-A while sitting 90-93 with an average changeup and curveball. He generates plus-plus extension. Gaddis has 45 stuff and had 60 command projection as an amateur, but the strikes have backed up. Kilkenny had Tommy John last summer and may not toe a pro affiliate’s mound until he’s 23 next year.
Young Developmental Sleepers
Bladdy Restutiyo, INF
Walking Cabrera, RF
Daniel Montano, OF
Yolki Pena, OF
Shael Mendoza, 2B
Cristopher Navarro, SS
Restutiyo is an athletic, projectable infielder who is currently playing several positions. Cabrera is a traditional right field profile with some power, arm strength, and a big, skinny frame that should add lots of good mass. Pena is just a physical projection teenager who also walked a lot last year. Montano has quick hitter’s hands but may not do enough with the bat to profile in a corner. Mendoza has pop but has regressed on defense; Navarro has a good glove but has regressed with the bat.
Bench Types
Dom Nunez, C
Yonathan Daza, OF
Sam Hilliard, OF
Roberto Ramos, 1B
Brian Mundell, 1B
Nunez is crushing Triple-A. He can catch, he walks, and the rest of his tools are 40s. Hilliard has huge power but can’t touch lefties at all. Ramos and Mundell have Quad-A traits.
Relievers
Rico Garcia, RHP
Reid Humphreys, RHP
Raymells Rosa, RHP
Alfredo Martinez, RHP
Shelby Lackey, RHP
Garcia is starting right now, but his 93-96 and average secondaries project in the bullpen. Humphreys sits 92-95 and has an average breaking ball. Rosa is a loose, athletic 21-year-old who sits 93-94 with an average breaker. Martinez touches 96 and has an above-average curveball. Lackey was a late round draft pick who has been up to 98.
System Overview
The list of recent, early-round Rockies pitcher draftees is terrifying. Peter Lambert is working out. Pint is teetering. David Hill, Javier Medina, Mike Nikorak, Robert Tyler, Mitch Kilkenny, and Ben Bowden have all had injury problems, and 2017 fourth rounder Pearson McMahan is listed on milb.com as having been released already. That’s a lot of misses early in the last few drafts. On some level, this is damning. But look at the 40-man roster and you’ll see that an overwhelming majority of the talent on a competitive club was developed from within. Are the Rockies good at this or not? It depends on how you look at it.
They frustrate scouts, though. The Rockies are notoriously difficult to ply information from, even when it seems logical and in their interest to disseminate that info — like accurate rosters for the backfields, pitching probables, etc. — in the minds of opposing scouts. Is it in a team’s best interest for other teams to like their prospects? Scouts would say yes, but the Rockies don’t always behave as though they think that’s true.
Can we identify talent acquisition trends? The pitchability college arm has been a popular early Day 2 option for Colorado, though it hasn’t really yielded much lately. Up-the-middle performers have panned out well (Hampson, Rodgers, Vilade, and Vavra look good). Last year’s DSL group, which is currently in extended spring training, is deep and interesting. One or two players from that group could emerge as a 45 FV or better this year, though the lack of an AZL affiliate means this group will either need to face Pioneer League pitching or head back to the DSL for the summer, even though they’re age-appropriate for Arizona.
Kiley McDaniel Chat – 5/29/19
| 1:07 |
: Hello from ATL, I’m back home and just got back from lunch. Scout is in the backyard policing the squirrel/chipmunk population and occasionally glaring at me through the window when she wants a play partner. |
| 1:08 |
: Today Eric and I published our latest mock, this time the full 78 picks that go on day one: https://blogs.fangraphs.com/mock-draft-3-0-two-rounds/ |
| 1:08 |
: With that nav bar at the top of the page you can see what else we have planned for draft week, including a few things that are draft-related that aren’t up there |
| 1:09 |
: Lastly, your questions about which player we prefer at this moment for the draft, or any future draft, or for July 2 or for the minors can all be answered at THE BOARD, which is quickly reaching ludicrous size: https://www.fangraphs.com/prospects/the-board/2019-mlb-draft?type=0 |
| 1:10 |
: If the Phillies go underslot for Hoese or Henderson, any names they could float to 71? That’s a long way. |
| 1:12 |
: Yeah that would be tough. We don’t think they cut much from that pick and often when the savings+overage is about $1M and the gap to the next pick is long, it doesn’t all get spent on the 2nd pick. You’d need to target 4-6 players that all have a chance to get to 71 to have any real chance of getting one there. Often just taking what gets to you for slot is a better plan |