Official 2021 MLB draft thread

[Tank]

1 hour ago, Dochalo said:

The Angels probably also spent more time on Bachman.  Feel very comfortable that they know his number.  Clearly they didn't think Rocker better and if they did, it wasn't so much that they would risk the possibility that they didn't communicate with him as much and that he might actually go over slot.  

The amount of time and effort they might put into a guy makes a big difference even if someone slightly higher on their board may have dropped a fair amount.  Tie goes to the guy you feel more comfortable with because you know him better.  

I'm surprised they didn't take Rocker but I'm glad they got a guy with upside to be a #1.   

maybe minassian watched "Draft Day" over the weekend and pulled a Kevin Costner.

[ten ocho recon scout]

30 minutes ago, Tank said:

maybe minassian watched "Draft Day" over the weekend and pulled a Kevin Costner.

I hope that every draft year we go through this. We usually end up with waterworld, though

[mmc]

So who do you guys want at 45?

[AngelStew43]

Jaden Hill is still on the board.  Just had TJS, but a top 10 pick pre injury.  We should draft and do the rehab.

[Stradling]

11 hours ago, Lou said:

Steinbrenner is cheap.

Thank you for this.  

[Dtwncbad]

We all know Kumar’s name because was once touted as possibly the #1 overall.  Then he was probably top three.  Then projected to be top 6-7ish. . . 
And Angel fans then salivated that MAYBE a couple of teams would make weird picks and Kumar might be there at #9.

There is a reason he was drifting.  That is no accident.  So the Angels passed and he went tenth.

I am not going to rip the Angels for not taking him.

You know when the draft is pretty far off, all the projections are mostly based on stats and visual analysis of watching guys play.

As the draft gets closer and teams hone in on smaller lists of names, they start to really dig into these guys as people.

As this discovery unfolds, there is going to be movement up and down draft boards based on all kinds of things.

Don’t catch a falling knife.  Rocker only went one spot after the Angels.  Yes, that very well could end up being a mistake in hindsight.

But it isn’t automatically a mistake just because Rocker was often ranked higher than the spot the Angels picked.

The question is do we have a good GM that is good at drafting.

This is the kind of pick where we find out.

I have read about 25 scouting reports on Bachman now and I don’t see anything that tells me this guy can’t be a damn good major league pitcher.

I am not going to let passing on all the obvious Rocker hype spoil my enthusiasm for Bachman.  If this front office is good at drafting, this very well could end up being the specific proof of their drafting prowess.

Let’s have the patience to find out.

Edited July 12, 2021 by Dtwncbad

[Stradling]

So many people are convinced Bachman is just a reliever despite starting all but one game in his college career.  The only blemish to me is he averaged just under 5 innings per start this year. He does look like a max effort guy, kinda like Chris Rodriguez.  

[Dtwncbad]

1 minute ago, Stradling said:

So many people are convinced Bachman is just a reliever despite starting all but one game in his college career.  The only blemish to me is he averaged just under 5 innings per start this year. He does look like a max effort guy, kinda like Chris Rodriguez.  

The innings pitched is something to notice. I gotta believe the Angels believe they can specifically develop through this, otherwise I don’t think they make the pick.

One report I read said something like (paraphrasing) “A team that fully buys into him as a starter could take him much earlier and will be rewarded if they are correct.”

[Dtwncbad]

The other thing that probably matters is “the Trout window”. . . 

It seems like the ceiling is high end starting pitcher, and the floor for this guy is damn good late inning guy.

But either way I keep reading that this guy could be on the fastest track to the majors, with some saying he could pitch for the Angels this year.  That seems really ambitious but let’s say this guy reaches the majors and is good next year.

Isn’t there at least SOME additional value there for being fast help?

 

[Jason]

21 minutes ago, Dtwncbad said:

We all know Kumar’s name because was once touted as possibly the #1 overall.  Then he was probably top three.  Then projected to be top 6-7ish. . . 
And Angel fans then salivated that MAYBE a couple of teams would make weird picks and Kumar might be there at #9.

There is a reason he was drifting.  That is no accident.  So the Angels passed and he went tenth.

I am not going to rip the Angels for not taking him.

You know when the draft is pretty far off, all the projections are mostly based on stats and visual analysis of watching guys play.

As the draft gets closer and teams hone in on smaller lists of names, they start to really dig into these guys as people.

As this discovery unfolds, there is going to be movement up and down draft boards based on all kinds of things.

Don’t catch a falling knife.  Rocker only went one spot after the Angels.  Yes, that very well could end up being a mistake in hindsight.

But it isn’t automatically a mistake just because Rocker was often ranked higher than the spot the Angels picked.

The question is do we have a good GM that is good at drafting.

This is the kind of pick where we find out.

I have read about 25 scouting reports on Bachman now and I don’t see anything that tells me this guy can’t be a damn good major league pitcher.

I am not going to let passing on all the obvious Rocker hype spoil my enthusiasm for Bachman.  If this front office is good at drafting, this very well could end up being the specific proof of their drafting prowess.

Let’s have the patience to find out.

Hey! Stop trying to sound reasonable about this 

[DCAngelsFan]

3 hours ago, AngelStew43 said:

Jaden Hill is still on the board.  Just had TJS, but a top 10 pick pre injury.  We should draft and do the rehab.

I wonder how far he'll fall?  

Elbow problems can be bad news - could all be related to the UCL and the TJ resolved it.

I dunno - if he dropped to 3rd round, I'd do that in a heartbeat (assuming the medical report has no big concerns.)   A high #2?   hmm ...

I think we were linked with Will Taylor at some point - but there's signability concerns there with his college commitment.

 

[Dtwncbad]

4 minutes ago, Jason said:

Hey! Stop trying to sound reasonable about this 

You know one name that was a million times tied to the Angels in draft discussions was Ty Madden.

And then he went 32nd.

Can we all acknowledge that if the Angels had grabbed Ty Madden at #9, we all would have just just nodded and said “good job” or “that’s seems about right” not knowing that he would have been passed over for 23 more picks?

I mean, it’s not like Bachman wasn’t highly touted as a mid first round pick all over the place.  He was.

So let’s just be glad the Angels have another high ceiling pitching prospect and trust the new front office. . . until they actually give us a legitimate reason to not trust them.

[DCAngelsFan]

37 minutes ago, Dtwncbad said:

We all know Kumar’s name because was once touted as possibly the #1 overall.  Then he was probably top three.  Then projected to be top 6-7ish. . . 
And Angel fans then salivated that MAYBE a couple of teams would make weird picks and Kumar might be there at #9.

There is a reason he was drifting.  That is no accident.  So the Angels passed and he went tenth.

 

I'm gonna assume he dropped because of the velocity drops he showed at precisely the wrong time.

I hope those concerns were why we passed on him, because we wanted to avoid risk there.

It's also possible we were certain he wouldn't fall to us, and we just didn't do due diligence in scouting and talking to him.

That would be disappointing - even if the result was the same - it just would signal a lack of imagination and a lack of organizational polish - with the #9 pick, there shouldn't be any questions in your mind about players that may fall to you.

 

[Lou]

3 minutes ago, DCAngelsFan said:

I'm gonna assume he dropped because of the velocity drops he showed at precisely the wrong time.

I hope those concerns were why we passed on him, because we wanted to avoid risk there.

It's also possible we were certain he wouldn't fall to us, and we just didn't do due diligence in scouting and talking to him.

That would be disappointing - even if the result was the same - it just would signal a lack of imagination and a lack of organizational polish - with the #9 pick, there shouldn't be any questions in your mind about players that may fall to you.

 

You're assuming we had Rocker rated higher than Bachman.

[Dtwncbad]

5 minutes ago, DCAngelsFan said:

I'm gonna assume he dropped because of the velocity drops he showed at precisely the wrong time.

I hope those concerns were why we passed on him, because we wanted to avoid risk there.

It's also possible we were certain he wouldn't fall to us, and we just didn't do due diligence in scouting and talking to him.

That would be disappointing - even if the result was the same - it just would signal a lack of imagination and a lack of organizational polish - with the #9 pick, there shouldn't be any questions in your mind about players that may fall to you.

 

Can you also list some other imagined reasons the Angels could be stupid?

[eligrba]

With all due respect, stop worrying about whether this was a good pick or not based on draft predictions. 

[Jason]

I know none of us are happy with the past off season pitching acquisitions of the Halos but I'm confident that Minasian and the other scouts on this team know more about baseball and other details regarding these draft prospects than most of us here do.  I know it's difficult but we still have to have some faith they can draft and develop good players. 

[DCAngelsFan]

1 hour ago, Lou said:

You're assuming we had Rocker rated higher than Bachman.

Uh, no - the fact we drafted Bachman over Rocker makes it obvious who was rated higher, at least by the Angels.  

It was said elsewhere that we drafted the guy we spent the most time with, not necessarily the one rated higher. 

[DCAngelsFan]

1 hour ago, Dtwncbad said:

Can you also list some other imagined reasons the Angels could be stupid?

Hmm - I dunno, let's have a look at our record the last few years and think about it ...

[Dtwncbad]

3 minutes ago, DCAngelsFan said:

Hmm - I dunno, let's have a look at our record the last few years and think about it ...

[Taylor]

5 hours ago, AngelStew43 said:

Jaden Hill is still on the board.  Just had TJS, but a top 10 pick pre injury.  We should draft and do the rehab.

We're very experienced at TJS rehab.

[Lou]

8 minutes ago, DCAngelsFan said:

Uh, no - the fact we drafted Bachman over Rocker makes it obvious who was rated higher, at least by the Angels.  

This makes it sound as if you thought otherwise.

"That would be disappointing - even if the result was the same - it just would signal a lack of imagination and a lack of organizational polish - with the #9 pick, there shouldn't be any questions in your mind about players that may fall to you"

If a player falls to us, that would mean we had him rated higher.

[jsnpritchett]

One-minute limit for picks today, so things are moving fast!  Angels pick will be in a few minutes.

[jsnpritchett]

KC didn't pick Taylor or Chandler, so regardless of what Colorado does, at least one of them will be available for the Angels if they want them.

[Chuck]

Any of Matt Mikulski, Ky Bush or Jaden Hill, Bubba Chandler, Jud Fabian or Will Taylor would be great for our second round pick!