The Official 2017 MLB Amateur Draft Thread

[totdprods]

2 hours ago, Angel Oracle said:

Exactly, 10th overall pick is a lot different from an overall pick in the 20s. 

Browsing last few years worth of drafts, there doesn't seem to be a whole lot of variation in players taken #10 (this year) and #16 (Thaiss, last year) so I still wouldn't be wholly surprised if they went for someone who will go underslot. Maybe not quite as drastically as Ward/Thaiss, but I can see the same strategy still applying this year. 

[Dave Saltzer]

8 minutes ago, totdprods said:

Browsing last few years worth of drafts, there doesn't seem to be a whole lot of variation in players taken #10 (this year) and #16 (Thaiss, last year) so I still wouldn't be wholly surprised if they went for someone who will go underslot. Maybe not quite as drastically as Ward/Thaiss, but I can see the same strategy still applying this year. 

I disagree with the premise here. Just because others ranked and preferred different players more doesn't mean that the Angels went "under slot" with their picks. In Thaiss, they really believed that they were getting the best available college bat at the pick. They wanted Thaiss more than those they could have gotten between there and their second round pick. They were absolutely thrilled to get Marsh and Williams after that, but they wanted Thaiss more.

 

The same is true with Ward. There was a plan in place there at the time, and Ward was to fit into that plan. Others may have valued Ward as a lower talent, but within the Angels plan, getting a top-tiered catcher to go with the pitching that they were developing made sense. Look at how much of an affect that Maldonado has had on our pitching this year and on the defense. That was what they were hoping to get and to develop to go along with all of their college pick pitchers. It may not have been the best plan, but that was clearly the plan, and within that, getting Ward made a lot of sense. Add in that they were absolutely convinced that he would be off the board when they picked again, they took him with their first round pick. 

 

Value and worth are entirely different concepts. Teams can value players more for different reasons. With hindsight, we can see what the players are worth. 23 teams valued players other than Mike Trout more, but none of those guys are worth what Trout has done for our franchise. 200+ picks were made before Albert Pujols was taken (we picked right before him and didn't take him). Again, are any of those players worth all that Albert has done on the field?

 

When people are on here complaining about overdrafts and underdrafts, they need to understand the difference between value and worth.

[Angel Oracle]

1 hour ago, Blarg said:

Local Asian kid that plays 2nd base. Adam just got a pre draft boner.

Reigning Big West Conference POTY Keston Hiura, predicted for a top 15 overall draft pick?

[totdprods]

48 minutes ago, Dave Saltzer said:

I disagree with the premise here. Just because others ranked and preferred different players more doesn't mean that the Angels went "under slot" with their picks. In Thaiss, they really believed that they were getting the best available college bat at the pick. They wanted Thaiss more than those they could have gotten between there and their second round pick. They were absolutely thrilled to get Marsh and Williams after that, but they wanted Thaiss more.

They absolutely did draft "underslot" - both players signed way below what was projected for that slot's value. Wasn't going off prospect rankings. 

I don't doubt that they valued Ward/Thaiss more than other clubs, nor do I think they were intentionally trying to be 'cheap' by picking the cheapest player possible (but still within reason) but they absolutely picked 1st rounders that came underslot, and they immediately utilized those savings on picks #2-#4 (generally) who signed (generally) over slot. It's not a criticism or a complaint. I think it's actually pretty savvy given how unpredictable even first-round talent is. Why draft the more hyped players who are going to cost at or more than slot and hamper what you have to spend later on? Especially when your farm needs as much help as the Angels, and your budget is as tight as it is. 

I see names like Adell and Bukauskus and expect them to cost #10 money, or more, if they make it there. I haven't followed this year's class as closely, but I've seen those names enough for the last year to know that they'll go early and be expensive - if the Angels pick one, great, I love it, but it wouldn't surprise me if they continue their recent trend and pick someone who is a bit of a surprise, signs underslot, and we see more overslot signings with round 2 and beyond. I'm curious to see when/if that trend breaks.

"The Angels on Friday signed their first-round draft choice, Fresno State catcher Taylor Ward, for a bonus of $1.67 million – almost 20 percent below the $2.034 million bonus recommended for the 26^th pick."

"10:15pm: Thaiss will receive a $2.15MM bonus, Jeff Fletcher of the Orange County Register tweets. That leaves just over $500K in added funds for the club to dedicate to other draftees.

9:51pm: The Angels have signed first-round pick Matt Thaiss, the backstop himself tweeted. His bonus remains unknown, but the 16th overall selection came with an assigned value of $2.661MM."

[tdawg87]

All this hoopla over who the Angels might take when we all know they are gonna draft a toolsy catcher with a name similar to Mathis.

[Dave Saltzer]

9 minutes ago, totdprods said:

They absolutely did draft "underslot" - both players signed way below what was projected for that slot's value. Wasn't going off prospect rankings. 

I don't doubt that they valued Ward/Thaiss more than other clubs, nor do I think they were intentionally trying to be 'cheap' by picking the cheapest player possible (but still within reason) but they absolutely picked 1st rounders that came underslot, and they immediately utilized those savings on picks #2-#4 (generally) who signed (generally) over slot. It's not a criticism or a complaint. I think it's actually pretty savvy given how unpredictable even first-round talent is. Why draft the more hyped players who are going to cost at or more than slot and hamper what you have to spend later on? Especially when your farm needs as much help as the Angels, and your budget is as tight as it is. 

I see names like Adell and Bukauskus and expect them to cost #10 money, or more, if they make it there. I haven't followed this year's class as closely, but I've seen those names enough for the last year to know that they'll go early and be expensive - if the Angels pick one, great, I love it, but it wouldn't surprise me if they continue their recent trend and pick someone who is a bit of a surprise, signs underslot, and we see more overslot signings with round 2 and beyond. I'm curious to see when/if that trend breaks.

"The Angels on Friday signed their first-round draft choice, Fresno State catcher Taylor Ward, for a bonus of $1.67 million – almost 20 percent below the $2.034 million bonus recommended for the 26^th pick."

"10:15pm: Thaiss will receive a $2.15MM bonus, Jeff Fletcher of the Orange County Register tweets. That leaves just over $500K in added funds for the club to dedicate to other draftees.

9:51pm: The Angels have signed first-round pick Matt Thaiss, the backstop himself tweeted. His bonus remains unknown, but the 16th overall selection came with an assigned value of $2.661MM."

You are missing a key word in there. I've put it in bold. That's what the leagues recommend players sign for, and for pool money, that's what was available to them at that slot. But, if they truly valued Williams more than say Thaiss, they would have picked him ahead of Thaiss. They took Thaiss because they thought he was the best bat available. Drafting a lesser talent in the first round so you can get a greater talent in subsequent rounds makes no sense. Take the best talent available in the round. I get the point that taking a player whom others would value as lesser and will sign for less is drafting underslot. But, that's not really drafting underslot if that player fits your overall plan best, especially if that player won't be available to you later. If that's your only chance to grab someone, you have to use it, even if others don't value him as highly.

 

To me, drafting underslot is like when we took someone McKay Christensen (uggghh, what a waste) because Jackie was going cheap with the team. They had to draft somebody in the first round, so literally, they drafted some body for no purpose (he wouldn't even be able to play for 2+ years after being drafted due to his mission--not knocking the importance of his mission, but there was no way no other team would have taken him when they did and he clearly didn't fit our plans--assuming we had some plans back then).

 

IMHO, Ward gets a bad rap around here because signed for less than the recommended money and other people ranked him as a lower talent. If he had been the catcher and some of those pitchers developed with him, it would have been seen as a genius move. It didn't work as intended, but Ward is still developing and has legitimate defensive skills. His offense is developing. It's much like how some on here ranted and Kendrick because of a line in BA about being a future batting champ and that didn't happen. How many people would love to have Howie's typical year's production out of 2B now?

[Dick B Back]

TBPA > TBCA.

[totdprods]

@Dave Saltzer, alright, I'll re-phrase the initial sentiment..

I wonder if the Angels will once again use their 1st round pick on a player who signs below league-recommended draft slot value, or, if now higher in the order, they will wind up selecting a player who costs at or more than recommended value.

Is that better?  I may have not worded it clearly.

I was extremely happy with the draft choices the past two years. I like Ward, Thaiss, Jones, Marsh, Williams, Rodriguez, Duensing and in no way knocking what they did. But they've certainly employed a strategy of paying less for Round One, and more Rounds Two thru Four, and I wonder if that pattern will break. I don't think the difference between a #10 pick and a #16 pick is enough to really guarantee they will break from that trend. 

[Dave Saltzer]

16 minutes ago, Dick B Back said:

TBPA > TBCA.

LMAO!

[Dave Saltzer]

4 minutes ago, totdprods said:

@Dave Saltzer, alright, I'll re-phrase the initial sentiment..

I wonder if the Angels will once again use their 1st round pick on a player who signs below league-recommended draft slot value, or, if now higher in the order, they will wind up selecting a player who costs at or more than recommended value.

Is that better?  I may have not worded it clearly.

I was extremely happy with the draft choices the past two years. I like Ward, Thaiss, Jones, Marsh, Williams, Rodriguez, Duensing and in no way knocking what they did. But they've certainly employed a strategy of paying less for Round One, and more Rounds Two thru Four, and I wonder if that pattern will break. I don't think the difference between a #10 pick and a #16 pick is enough to really guarantee they will break from that trend. 

There's three ways to look at it. 1) They have a different approach to scouting and drafting than what the consensus is/has been. That was the case when they picked Trout. Sheesh I miss Eddie Bane. 2) They are going cheaper in the first round when there isn't that much of a difference between the talent level in the first round to allow them more money to persuade some kids to go away from college who might have gone, especially if they weren't drafted in the first round. 3) They clearly have a strategy (whether it is a good or bad strategy is debatable) and they have to take a certain player to fit into that strategy and they don't think they will be able to get him later on.

 

Clearly when they drafted Ward first, they went with strategy #3. And, clearly, last year with Thaiss, they went with strategy #2 (however, my point remains that they still viewed him as a better talent than their #2 or #3 round pick, just that there wasn't enough of a difference between him and the other players available to them in the first round).

 

This year, I really hope we go for the best player available and spend fully on that in our early rounds. If we have to go overslot to sign some of them, go cheaper in the later stages of the first 10 rounds so that we can get some true impact players. I hope we aren't ever drafting this low again, or at least for the foreseeable future, so, I don't want to waste it. Get the best impact players early on while we can, and if we have to scrimp on money, do so later when the picks are much less certain.

[Blarg]

3 hours ago, Dick B Back said:

We know how that worked out last time they drafted a local Asian kid.

[Brent Maguire]

Thaiss and Ward were both underslot picks but Thaiss was a reasonable pick, going about 10-15 picks early but that pick was justifiable. He has a very good chance to make it to the majors in some capacity. Ward, however, was picked about 2 rounds too early according to any scout, draft expert or analyst you talk to. He's the same player he was when he was drafted: cannon arm behind the plate with good pop times, bad framing, bad blocking, above average plate discipline but light bat. FWIW, I've also talked to some people who say Ward is not as well liked in the Angels organization as you would assume with him being a defense first catcher. I'll leave it at that. 

[tdawg87]

I'm glad the Angels' war room went apeshit when they drafted him, like they just got some secret weapon only they knew about. I'm calling Ward "White Baldoquin" forever. 

[Second Base]

With this year's draft class being as extremely pitching heavy as it is, I think the Angels will go one of two ways. They'll either get a pitcher they otherwise wouldn't have had a prayer at, or they'll grab themselves the upside bat the organization so desperately needs and take advantage of that pitching depth in the second round, likely getting a first round quality talent with their second pick. 

The Angels may never pick this high again, don't waste the 10th overall pick on a bargain. Get the star caliber player that otherwise would've been gone 15 selections before you ever got to pick.

[KevinJ14]

Look out for this dude as an 8-10th rounder 

 

[KevinJ14]

 

[KevinJ14]

 

[Angel Oracle]

Hurst just missed a FIFTH HR by about 2 feet.

[Chuck]

With all of these up and coming pitchers in the org, I'd really like us to go after some high profile bats in this draft and stay away from the toolsy, project types. 

[UndertheHalo]

So, do we not like Ward ?

[Second Base]

17 hours ago, UndertheHalo said:

So, do we not like Ward ?

We like Ward, just not his draft position. He's a third round catcher, not a top pick. Being a top pick like that allowed the Angels to save some money and land Jahmai Jones in the second round, but it also placed unreal expectations on Ward.

The Angels made it sound like he was an elite defensive catcher that would hit got power. Their scouting report wasn't far off, but it lacked the depth. For example, Ward does have elite tools behind the plate, great movement, quick reflexes and an unbelievable arm. But he's also very raw, not the best pitch blocker, not too adept at itch calling and is still in the process of learning who he has to be to lead a pitching staff. The Angels were right about his power, but it's one thing to have it in BP, and another entirely for it to show up in the game.

So the fact that he's repeating Advanced A Ball and hitting .250 suggests that the Angels couple ever spent their money on someone else in the first round and drafted Taylor Ward where everyone else slotted him.

He'll still be a big leaguer someday, with tools like that. But I think we are seeing that he'll likely be a platoon catcher, a Jeff Mathis type.

[Dave Saltzer]

Here's an interesting look at this year's draft broken down by position. Food for thought . . . http://m.mlb.com/news/article/232904062/all-draft-prospects-team-by-position/?topicid=151437456

[Dave Saltzer]

From Law's latest mock draft:

10. Los Angeles Angels

Griffin Canning, RHP

UCLA

The Angels have been linked to Adell for a few weeks, but they are definitely considering some college names, including the UVa kids and UCLA’s Canning.

 

http://www.espn.com/blog/keith-law/insider/post?id=7116

[Stax]

Jordon Adell  reminds me to much of Chevy Clarke. I hope the Angels do not draft him.

 

[Chuck]

3 minutes ago, Stax said:

Jordon Adell  reminds me to much of Chevy Clarke. I hope the Angels do not draft him.

 

I've worried about this as well. I would rather go with a more sure thing at #10.