The 2017 MLB Draft Thread (#9 Pick + #34 & #46)

[brewmann04]

Thank you for posting

[And That]

If you're a team whose true performance should be 90 losses, it can make a huge difference in draft position if you get lucky and only lose 86 games, or get unlucky and lose 94.

[MrTPlush]

At the end of the day the Brewers are going to try and win every game and end up with a certain record. Every team in baseball is going to do the same exact thing. It isn't like other teams are tanking and we aren't. If we end up with the #10 pick we were the tenth worst team and there were nine teams that sucked more.

 

All teams have hot streaks and hot months. That's the reality of things. If we end up with a record of something like 15-11 in September that is not crazy. Even horrible teams will end up having a month long stretch of baseball where they do well. In my opinion that isn't playing over our heads because that is pretty typical even for a bad team to do one month of the season.

 

The only situation where I could see one being upset with how we finish is if we truly just dominate in Septemeber like we did in 2012. Because it isn't typical for a team to be this bad and suddenly go 20-10 to finish the season. That is a true outlier and we clearly don't have the kind of talent that can sustain anywhere near that kind of pace for an entire season.

 

Of course finishing 20-11 with this team is a lot different than in 2012. The 2012 was filled with veterans who were doing well at the end along with some rookies over performing because the league didn't know them. This team is all young guys that have been playing most of the year. At least some of them could carry that success into future seasons.

[paul253]

People are referring to a longer time frame when saying "we always finish strong". It's definitely directed at a 15+ game stretch minimum.

 

Not really. If the Brewers win their last 10 games this year then when we say "they finished strong" we are referring to the final 10 games. If they finish the 13-2 then we are referring to the final 15 games. a "finish" can be two weeks or six weeks as far as I'm concerned.

 

To me you look at the 162 game record. We lost 90...did we perform like a 90 loss team? Yep. Ok so I don't see the problem. What do people want the Brewers to do? Go to the plate with pool noodles at the end of the season?

 

When you lose matters. If you start 25-10 and are in the division lead until mid August but then finish 10-25, people are going to mad at the terrible finish because up until that finish you probably had a very good chance of making the playoffs and/or winning the division. However if you start 10-25 and are out of contention by mid August, then finishing 25-10 does nothing more than get you a much lower draft pick. Either way you go 35-35 but the repercussions of WHEN you win your games are much different. Take 2014 for example. We certainly weren't rooting for losses on August 25 when they were 15 games over .500 because they were still in it obviously. But had they started 9-21 rather than finished 9-21 and we never really close to a playoff birth it would have been a different story.

 

What do people want the Brewers to do? Go to the plate with pool noodles at the end of the season?

 

We want them to play for the future rather than chase meaningless wins. If they play for the future and win, so be it. Last season I was all about calling for them to sit Lucroy. They didn't and look what happened. He got a concussion and there were all sorts of questions about his health coming into this season. I was also calling for them to let Jeffress or Thornburg close out a game every now and then for the experience. People said "but KRod is the closer", as if he HAD to close games. Well of course KRod gets traded and Jeffress is given the closer's role with zero closing experience. Both instances worked out fine in the end but there was no guarantee of that. This year is a bit different because pretty much everyone other than Braun is auditioning for the future.

 

All teams have hot streaks and hot months. That's the reality of things. If we end up with a record of something like 15-11 in September that is not crazy.

 

Can you at least understand the frustration? When your one hot streak is when it not only least matters but actually may hurt your future people are obviously going t be upset.

[MrTPlush]

This entire season has been a lost cause so why wasn't there a fuss any other win streak in the year? However if we go on a streak right now we will hear about it for the next half decade on how the winning streak in September ruined the draft. That kind of thinking just doesn't make sense to me. I understand being frustrated, but I also realize that is baseball. However there are some, not all, that beat it to death for multiple years.

 

Regarding sitting Lucroy last year no way. If I remember right that concussion was early September. We aren't going to shut down players(except some pitchers) 3-4 weeks before the season is done. That is just way too early to be doing that kind of thing. However if I remember right we did start sitting select players down and limit playing time towards the very end. It appears you want the Brewers to sit good players down and try to tank. Good luck I haven't seen any team try to do that at the start of September.

[paul253]

This entire season has been a lost cause so why wasn't there a fuss any other win streak in the year

 

Like I said it's about when you win and when you lose. No matter how bad we think this team is there's always the always the chance they could overachieve and make the playoffs. If you win 10 in a row in May it helps put you in a position to make the playoffs. If you win 10 in a row after you have been mathematically eliminated it means nothing because you have no hope of making the playoffs. People want the Brewers to win. But some of us don't mind if they lose when winning accomplishes nothing.

 

Let me put it this way. If the Packers go 13-3 this year people would probably say "if you told me at the beginning of the year the Packers would be 13-3 I'd take it". But if the Packers start 13-0 and then finish 13-3 a lot of people would probably be a little disappointed, even though the record is exactly the same. Same goes here. If the Brewers are on pace to have the 5th pick then at the very end of the season start playing really well and finish with the 11th pick people are probably going to be disappointed.

 

egarding sitting Lucroy last year no way. If I remember right that concussion was early September. We aren't going to shut down players(except some pitchers) 3-4 weeks before the season is done. That is just way too early to be doing that kind of thing. However if I remember right we did start sitting select players down and limit playing time towards the very end. It appears you want the Brewers to sit good players down and try to tank. Good luck I haven't seen any team try to do that at the start of September.

 

Well first off I didn't say "shut down". But he didn't have to play 6 games a week. Just like I didn't say KRod should never close a game in September. You keep referring to it as "tanking". There's a difference between tanking and playing for the future when the present is already lost. That's what we want, although truth be told I wouldn't even care if they tanked. Playing for the future is getting closer experience for a guy who is likely going to be your closer next year. Or starting someone who you think might compete for a starting position next year vs playing he same vet who is likely gone. Or resting an older vet like Lucroy or Braun more often to lower the likelihood serious injury (just like Lucroy sustained last year). We don't have to keep throwing out the same lineup or rotation to go from 68 wins to 71 wins. At this point wins do not matter in the least bit. If you consider that tanking, so be it. But this season is lost anyway so why not see what we have for next year?

[brewcrewdue80]

Well currently 10th after 7-3 in last 10games. Atl 6-4 in last 10 only other below us who's played above .500 in last 10. Angels 5-5. Other 7teams worse. Can pin us now for 7th-10th. We've outplayed bottom 6 to point you don't fathom losing 4+more games rest of the way over them.

 

5game lead on 11th so 10th is fairly secure. That's all I hope for is a top 10 pick so if we do sign a QO player we don't lose the first pick.

That is the process back in '14 of what happened. We won too many games and found a way to pick outside the top 10.

[MrTPlush]

The Packers comparison is just not right. Losing 3 games in a row in the NFL is a massive hit to ones overall winning %. Going 15-11 in September not so much. If we do the equivalent of losing 3 NFL games in a row then yah I'd freak out too because that would be like winning 20 games in a row.

 

I had to assume you meant shut down Lucroy because you made it seem like what you wanted could have avoided a concussion. We could have played him one game in Seltemeber and he could have ended up with a concussion. The injury wasn't because he played to much. It was a freak injury.

[LouisEly]

The difference between #3 and #5 in the draft is quite significant from a bonus pool perspective.

Don't higher picks sign for more money? How does that leave you with more money unless you purposely draft a player who isn't the 3rd best player available to get an underslot signing?

[And That]

The difference between #3 and #5 in the draft is quite significant from a bonus pool perspective.

Don't higher picks sign for more money?

No. None of the first five picks signed for slot this year. Or the year prior.

[logan82]

Wow, I didn't realize just how much the other teams ahead of us saved. I knew we lost out on a lot of money by dropping from 3rd or 4th to 5th but holy crap did we lose out on the ability to spend a ton on a second or third pick who we could sign over slot.

[LouisEly]

That's not what I was getting at. I don't recall anyone having Ian Anderson in their top 10 much less top 5; he was an obvious deliberate overdraft to generate additional bonus pool money for later picks. He was not considered to be the #3 overall pick, and is not a #3 overall talent. My assumption was built on taking the #3 overall player at #3; quality not quantity a la 2014, which is looking like a disaster so far.

 

What I was getting at was how Riley Pint, the #4 pick, signed for ~$700K more than Ray at #5. Those were guys who were projected to go around those picks. Because Pint signed for more, the amount under slot was all of $150K more than what Ray was under slot. Higher picks should sign for more if they are really better players. Look at 2015 - the #3 pick signed for $1.5M more than the #5 pick. Generated ~$500K more in extra pool, even though the slot is $2.1M higher. Yes, that can buy you an additional signee or two, but what are the chances that those players make it?

 

My point is that you can get higher quality prospects and more of a sure thing by trading veterans who are performing well than $500K in pool money will buy you.

[And That]

As for who was taken where, it's in the eye of the beholder. I'm sure some teams had Ray at 1 or 2. Equally as sure others had him outside of their top 10. And Groome was definitely the best player in the draft... until he wasn't. If Pint and Ray were both on the board when the Brewers picked, I'm guessing Pint would have slipped past Milwaukee. It's simply easier to get more talent with more money, if you're willing to spread it around.

 

And the difference between the #3 and #5 slot in 2016 was $2.1+ million, not $500k. The Brewers lost out on $900k just by not drafting at 4.

[reillymcshane]

If Pint and Ray were both on the board when the Brewers picked, I'm guessing Pint would have slipped past Milwaukee.

This is correct. Brewers had Ray as their top guy.

[pacopete4]

To me, the Brewers have two options moving forward:

 

1. Go 18-1 over their remaining 19 games to capture a winning season and secure 3rd place in the division.

2. Lose the remainder of their games to possibly get a top 3 pick in next years draft.

 

I'll let them decide what they want to do.

[LouisEly]

And the difference between the #3 and #5 slot in 2016 was $2.1+ million, not $500k. The Brewers lost out on $900k just by not drafting at 4.

I said it was $2.1M; $500k is how much more under slot the #3 pick was than the #5 pick was, factoring in that the #3 pick signed for $1.5M more than the #5 pick signed for.

 

$6.2M slot - $5.5M (what Rodgers signed for) = $700K

 

$4.2M slot - $4M (what Tucker signed for) = $200K

 

$700K - $200K = $500K. That's what I am referring to. The third pick - after factoring in what the players signed for - was only worth $500K more than the #5 pick.

[MrTPlush]

To me, the Brewers have two options moving forward:

 

1. Go 18-1 over their remaining 19 games to capture a winning season and secure 3rd place in the division.

 

No because then Attanasio will think we can compete next year and ruin the entire rebuild.

[pacopete4]

To me, the Brewers have two options moving forward:

 

1. Go 18-1 over their remaining 19 games to capture a winning season and secure 3rd place in the division.

 

No because then Attanasio will think we can compete next year and ruin the entire rebuild.

 

 

Haha, fine.. fine. But it would be flipping awesome to see.

[And That]

I said it was $2.1M; $500k is how much more under slot the #3 pick was than the #5 pick was, factoring in that the #3 pick signed for $1.5M more than the #5 pick signed for.

 

$6.2M slot - $5.5M (what Rodgers signed for) = $700K

 

$4.2M slot - $4M (what Tucker signed for) = $200K

 

$700K - $200K = $500K. That's what I am referring to. The third pick - after factoring in what the players signed for - was only worth $500K more than the #5 pick.

Using your math for the 2016 draft, which is what I was referring to:

 

$6,510,800 slot - $4,000,000 (what Anderson signed for) = $2,510,800

$4,382,200 slot - $4,125,000 (what Ray signed for) = $257,000

 

Therefore the third pick was worth $2,253,800 more than the fifth pick.

 

Or 2014, if you'd like:

$5,721,500 slot - $6,582,000 (what Rodon signed for) = -$860,500

$3,851,000 slot - $3,851,000 (what Gordon signed for) = 0

 

Therefore the third pick was worth $860,500 less than the fifth pick?

 

And yes, you will say Anderson was an underslot signing, to which I say, this is exactly my point. Guys are not drafted in order of talent because all teams view talent differently. Players are drafted because teams try to maximize the amount of self-perceived talent that they can acquire with their available bonus pool. In part because they signed Anderson to a deal $2.5 million under slot, they were able to get Joey Wentz for $1.4 million over slot, and the next four picks over slot as well. Had they selected Groome instead, they probably do not get Wentz, or a few other guys. Of course it is questionable whether or not that was the right strategy, time will tell, but by drafting at #3, the Braves had options the Brewers did not.

 

The larger bonus pool a team has, the more talent it has the chance to acquire. And at the top of the first round, there is an extremely sharp slope to the bonus pool values. There is a ton of difference between picking at #3 and #5.

[trwi7]

The only thing that will make me feel better with how this season has gone is a competitive balance A draft pick. These meaningless wins have been so annoying to me.

 

I hope this offseason we do a major selling off and completely suck from the beginning next year.

[MrTPlush]

I hope this offseason we do a major selling off and completely suck from the beginning next year.

 

Not a ton to sell off at this point. Realistically Braun/Thornburg are the last meaningful pieces that could go. Unless you think they would trade Villar/Davies or think Guerra is a major piece.

[LouisEly]

Of course it is questionable whether or not that was the right strategy

That's my point. In order to do that you have to sacrifice the #3 overall player and settle for a #11-16 overall player.

 

The Brewers had that option, and they tried it before - see 2014. Hasn't worked out well so far. If they would have went with players ranked at those slots (Turner/Beede/Newcomb at 12, A.J. Reed at 41) they would be a lot further ahead. The 2nd round overslot guys from that draft (Harrison, Blewett, Forbes, Morgan) aren't doing so well. And by having players do well, they were able to get one of the overslot guys (Supak) anyway.

[MrTPlush]

Of course it is questionable whether or not that was the right strategy

That's my point. In order to do that you have to sacrifice the #3 overall player and settle for a #11-16 overall player.

 

The Brewers had that option, and they tried it before - see 2014. Hasn't worked out well so far. If they would have went with players ranked at those slots (Turner/Beede/Newcomb at 12, A.J. Reed at 41) they would be a lot further ahead. The 2nd round overslot guys from that draft (Harrison, Blewett, Forbes, Morgan) aren't doing so well. And by having players do well, they were able to get one of the overslot guys (Supak) anyway.

 

Then you have the Astros who settled for Carlos Correa and ended up with a golden draft combo of Correa/McCullers. A lot of times those #11-16 overall players are the real gems.

[And That]

That's my point. In order to do that you have to sacrifice the #3 overall player and settle for a #11-16 overall player.

Except that there is no absolute, slap-bang #3 overall player, nor is there any particular #11 overall player. Those rankings don't exist. No front office pays much or any attention to what Jim Callis, John Manuel, or anyone else is saying. All teams value these players differently because they are evaluated internally in unique constructs. The Brewers would have taken Ray at 1.1 - other teams wouldn't have taken him at 1.10. Someone's #3 is someone else's #15. And sometimes there's Jose Fernandez, who made it clear he wanted to sign with the Marlins, so he ended up with the Marlins.

 

There are too many variables in 30 different scouting departments to say "player A has value X" and "player B has value Y."

 

What's not variable are the bonus pools - those are real, verifiable numbers that all teams know they have to work with. And the more money a team is able to spend, the more players that it values highly can be acquired.

[MrTPlush]

Except that there is no absolute, slap-bang #3 overall player, nor is there any particular #11 overall player.

 

Teams still have their own big board and I am guessing when teams strategically are drafting underslot guys early they are taking guys lower on the board to save money...not always but I would think a lot of the time they are.