Dave Saltzer

Alright, so let's start projecting for pick #47! Who we taking?

I'm really excited with this pick. The kid wants to play and looks like one hell of a player.

Woot!!!!!! Now go polished college pitching the next 2 roundsand then toolsy HS for rounds 4-6.

With hours to go, BA has its mock draft 4.5 out. Here's what they have for us . . . In this scenario, Adell is still not picked. 10. Angels Another tough one to divine, but the Angels are regularly connected to college players. Last year’s Virginia first baseman, Matt Thaiss, isn’t working out so hot so far, so we’re sticking with a college pitcher. Pick: Alex Faedo, rhp, Florida |

I know a lot of people on here think that everything Dipoto did was bad (it wasn't), but one of the changes that he implemented was adding a psychological profile to all potential draft picks so that they had a better idea of the player they were getting. That is still in place, as far as I know.

I almost included a paragraph about fielding and turning triple plays, but took that paragraph out. So . . . last night the Angels hit into a triple play!

I was at the game last night and noticed that we were not Buttercupped either in song form or bullpen form.

Another one to keep an eye on is Jonah Wesely. He's a LHRP coming back from Tommy John. Two bad innings really hurt his ERA, but for the season, he's got a 3.80 ERA in 21.1 IP with 27 K. His WHIP is 1.22. I think he will get a promotion soon.

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

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

Agreed. Thanks for sharing this.

It wasn't the signing of Baldoquin that was so bad. It was that once we went all in on one player, we should have gone all in on several that years. Yes, it would have been a lot of money, but that's what we would have to do in order to justify not being able to sign any players for 2 years. When one makes such a big risk, it's wise to spread it out over several players rather than one. What we did is akin to just drafting a player in the first round and not drafting anyone beyond that. At the time, I very much wanted us to sign Moncada. I thought he was the premiere talent that year. If we had burned our ability to sign international players and had gotten both of them, the apparent success of Moncada would negate the failure of Baldoquin. But, by putting all our eggs on him, we made the move far more risky, and it hasn't paid off.

Thanks for the thoughtful response. However, I disagree with your analysis. Adenhart was ranked the 34th best prospect by BA in 2007. Going into 2009, he was ranked 68th best by BA going into 2009. That's a lot more than just a grade B prospect--he was an A grade prospect. I would safely set the floor for him as a #3 starter, with a pretty high ceiling. So, let's just take a #3 starter for him. If we had him as a #3, would we have traded Corbin, Skaggs, Saunders, and Rafael Rodriguez for Haren? My bet is no. So, what else could we have gotten for that haul instead of Haren? Or, if we did still do the deal for Haren, how much further and better would we have been in 2010-2012 with Haren AND Adenhart in the rotation? Remember, this was when Weaver was still the ace of the staff, so, that would have been a great rotation. Let's assume we didn't trade Corbin and Skaggs, how much better would our rotation have been with the emergence of Corbin? If we had Corbin and Adenhart in our rotation, would we have traded Segura, Hellweg, and Pena for Greinke? Again, I think not. Now we may have still traded Segura, so what else could we have gotten for him than the rental of Greinke? Let's assume we don't trade Segura. How much better would we have been having him in our lineup? With his emergence, there's no way we trade Newcomb and Ellis for Simmons? Again, I doubt it. How much better could our rotation be if Newcomb and or Ellis develop? (Now to be fair, I'm really happy we have Simmons as he is better defensively than Segura, although Segura is better offensively). I'm sure I'm missing other wrinkles and permutations that all stem from the death of Adenhart. But, to say his death didn't have lasting effects on the organization is like saying throwing a stone in a pond doesn't make a ripple.

I really think you can put the blame truly on one person more than anyone else. I once wrote an article about it and then never published it because it was a bit morose and offensive. His name: Andrew Thomas Gallo, the drunk driving scumbag who killed Nick Adenhart. When you think about all the moves that were made as a result (trades for pitching, etc.) that might not have been done, or deals that could have been made if we didn't make trades, that one less set the organization back 6 years or so. I don't want to retrace it all, but we would be an entirely different club if Gallo had stayed home that night or taken an uber like any responsible human being. Instead, he can rot in jail for life, as I have no respect for drunk drivers. The next biggest share of the blame was the complete folding and collapse of our international scouting and player development. We got caught in a "scandal" that everyone in the industry was doing (and in many cases still basically do) because unfortunately, for Latin players, there are too many barriers under the current system (I'm a fan of a second draft for international players). In a broader context, it's been a failure to fully invest in scouting and player development as much as we should have, which has affected the team in many ways, both in drafting players and having prospects to trade. I don't get the point of spending tens of millions on one ML player without fully committing a few more million to make sure the players in development become the best they can be. After that, hiring Tony Reagins was a big mistake. Although i disagree with this premise, in this industry, so much of the coaching staff's and front office staff's reputation rests on their success on the field (however, this is slowly starting to change, especially with front office people, as baseball analytics are becoming more dominant). Tony Reagins was not going to be respected by the old school guys at the time and didn't have the new wave of analytics that were really just starting to revolutionize the whole industry. So, his hands were tied in too many ways--except for one. He got rid of Eddie Bane, which I believe was a big blow to our scouting department, which as noted above, played a big role in our lack of success. Finally, if we are to blame anyone or anything else, it was the failure to fully litigate and win a fraud claim against Gary Matthews Jr. At the time, I said all the clubs should be willing to pony up to money to fight the lawsuit and up to $1 million to pay off the contract (leaving Arte to potentially pickup the remainder of it--around $20 million) to make an absolute statement against PEDs. Instead, they didn't litigate it, and PEDs and PED enhanced stats and players have cost almost every organization millions more. If they had litigated and won the case against GMJr, the Angels would have had a better and stronger case to negate the remaining money on Hamilton's contract. But, because they didn't fight that one as thoroughly as I believe they should have, they had a weaker hand to play against Hamilton. That would be my take on things in a nutshell.

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.

LMAO!

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?

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.

What's to be upset about here? It's just money, so, it doesn't matter. If he's not doing well, then he won't be pitching. If he is, then he can possibly help us. We need the depth. Is this a great move? No. Is it a bad move. No. It's just a move that adds depth.

My attitude is to take TBPA in the first 5-7 rounds. If we need to save some money, because we project needing to spend over slot value in the first 7 rounds, then we can draft under slot value to store up money in rounds 8-10. As long as we sign people in those rounds, the money counts towards our total spent. I don't get the point of drafting "under" slot value early on, when you have the best chance of getting the premier talent. We know that under Eppler, they will spend right up until the penalties kick in for going over their bonus pool. So, why not spend it as much as possible early on and get the best talent available?

As others have said, not at 10, unless you have 2-3 more first round picks. We have a chance to get an impact player here, so we should definitely go for that. Adell appears to be a future impact player, as do several others with whom we've been linked. I am looking forward to seeing how it all unfolds.

Always take TBPA. Don't worry about drafting for a need or anything like that. The window on Trout for now is 2020, but I have a strong feeling that he wants to stay and we will want him to stay. A college pitcher taken in this year's draft might not even make a difference until the 2020 season, just as a rookie, at which point we will either have Trout locked up or know that he is leaving. Let's say that Hunter Green falls to us at 10 (he won't). Would we really pass on signing him because he doesn't fit into Trout's window? If Bukauskis projects as the better player, then we should take him. If Adell projects as the better player, then we should take him. Looking at player windows only makes sense for trades and FA signings, not drafts.

Chuck, here's the problem with that--there have been what, 19 players drafted who went straight to the Majors? that's in about 50 years, with 50 rounds for most of that time AND in many years, 2 sets of drafts . . . Unlike every other major sport, you really can't draft for need in baseball (which I am actually in favor of--unlike the other sports, there really isn't a defined build and type to play baseball, just ask Altuve). So, why would you trade your future higher pick for one this year that may or may not pan out in 3-5 years?

Does anyone have the full article of this? http://www.espn.com/blog/keith-law/insider/post?id=7049 In the tease, he wrote this: But at that point, it starts to get fuzzy. I’ve heard Shane Baz with Philadelphia a few times. The same with Jordon Adell and the Angels. I’m also pretty sure I’ve heard 12 players identified as "definitely going in the top 10," which I believe would require some sort of non-Euclidean draft math.

I talked with several players and scouts who thought that they would jump him to IE for that very reason. Starting in the MWL is a very tough place to play early in the season. It really affects the offense.