Jump to content
  • Welcome to AngelsWin.com

    AngelsWin.com - THE Internet Home for Angels fans! Unraveling Angels Baseball ... One Thread at a Time.

    Register today to comment and join the most interactive online Angels community on the net!

    Once you're a member you'll see less advertisements. If you become a Premium member and you won't see any ads! 

     

IGNORED

The Official 2023 MLB Amateur Draft Thread


Chuck

Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, Inside Pitch said:

Draft spending is capped by MLB rules, team's can't exceed their cap bonuses without getting penalized.  Maybe more importantly the talent was massively swayed in favor of college players, meaning the only players with any real leverage and thus the need to entice them to take the money NOW would be college sophomores as no Jr would risk going back and getting a take it or leave it offer.

I get the point you're trying to make, but this is the rare draft where the usual norms don't really apply.  If anything is limiting the Angels ability to make a play for a HS guys it was the loss of their second round pick and the $$ assigned to that slot.

Right off the bat I made a bad statement by only mentioning draft spending when I also meant pick quality.  With regards to what you wrote, thank you... yeah I agree and we all know that.

My biggest issue is with the picks, we made a lot of picks in rounds 1-10 that don't seem like they're going to be getting over slot value for the draft round they were picked at (to I guess have more money to spend in rounds 11 - 20 for HIGHER UPSIDE picks like Caden Dana or a Mason Albright)...

... and yet we didn't seem to pick HIGHER UPSIDE guys like a Dana or Albright in the later rounds is my issue.

Edited by Jimmy Z
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Jimmy Z said:

Right off the bat I made a bad statement by only mentioning draft spending when I also meant pick quality.  With regards to what you wrote, thank you... yeah I agree and we all know that.

My biggest issue is with the picks, we made a lot of picks in rounds 1-10 that don't seem like they're going to be getting over slot value for the draft round they were picked at (to I guess have more money to spend in rounds 11 - 20 for HIGHER UPSIDE picks like Caden Dana or a Mason Albright)...

... and yet we didn't seem to pick HIGHER UPSIDE guys like a Dana or Albright in the later rounds is my issue.

I get you on the pick quality, they seemingly went almost exclusively high floor and seemed to focus on certain specific qualities and as @jsnpritchett mentioned, they focused on OBP and speed.  I do however think that second pick, or rather the lack thereof and the talent being so skewed in favor of the college ranks played a big role overall.

This was a very Billy Beane era Oakland A's type of draft.  Just a ton on college guys with a seemingly standout attribute the team hopes to focus on.  Less a case of growing them but rather fine tuning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Jimmy Z said:

... and yet we didn't seem to pick HIGHER UPSIDE guys like a Dana or Albright in the later rounds is my issue.

Instead of signing someone like Dana or Albright for $1.25-$1.5 million, it seems like they spread out the savings on two high schoolers: RHP Barrett Kent in the 8th round and SS John Wimmer in the 11th round.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Trendon said:

Instead of signing someone like Dana or Albright for $1.25-$1.5 million, it seems like they spread out the savings on two high schoolers: RHP Barrett Kent in the 8th round and SS John Wimmer in the 11th round.

Admittedly,  I don't know much about either one, but Wimmer wasn't ranked on pre-draft boards that I saw, and Kent was ranked as the equivalent to something around the 4th round.  That's kinda what I don't really get: it's not like these two guys had major heat on them to begin with, so why go out of your way to go over slot on them? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, jsnpritchett said:

Admittedly,  I don't know much about either one, but Wimmer wasn't ranked on pre-draft boards that I saw, and Kent was ranked as the equivalent to something around the 4th round.  That's kinda what I don't really get: it's not like these two guys had major heat on them to begin with, so why go out of your way to go over slot on them? 

They clearly like them better than the public does, and you have to overpay to keep them from going to college.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, jsnpritchett said:

Ah, good ol' Lipscomb!  It's a Church of Christ school.  Bunch of people from my high school would go there every year (my HS was also affiliated with the CoC).

Same here, a few kids from church youth group all either went to Lipscomb or Harding. Good memories visiting the campus.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, jsnpritchett said:

He's been playing in indie ball (the Billings Mustangs are in the Pioneer League).  Putting up big K numbers. Gives up a lot of hits, too, which is unusual for a high-K guy.

https://www.baseball-reference.com/register/player.fcgi?id=tullar000cam

 

Looks like the higher hits number may have been to improve his control?  
6 BBs in 25 innings while still putting up 40 Ks

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, mmc said:

6

And 7

 

Burns is a 5th-year senior catcher.  Looks like he barely played until this year.  Took a ton of walks (he's probably just org filler, but interesting that even those guys seem to be falling into the on-base skills category).

McGillis is another 5th-year guy.  He'll be 25 in January. Strange stats this year: 31 hits, of which 14 were HR. Walks a good amount.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, totdprods said:

Maybe the dude just really wanted to play for the Angels or college and didn’t even bother talking with other teams.

My point is that if he was ranked as high as the low 200s by some folks, it's odd that he wasn't drafted at all. It's not like he was a HS guy who fell due to signability concerns. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...