It should be noted that the video was not filmed today or anything.Quote:
Originally Posted by 11larkin11
Printable View
It should be noted that the video was not filmed today or anything.Quote:
Originally Posted by 11larkin11
SourceQuote:
Originally Posted by 11larkin11
“I think I’m going (with) baseball,” Hamilton, a shortstop and outfielder, said moments after his selection. “I really don’t know yet, but I’m pretty sure I am, though.”
Sounds to me like he wants to play baseball.
I feel silly. I took Paxton #11 in the RZ mock draft, and he goes #37 in the real one. The Rockies way outdrafted me...
I took Michael Palazzone in like the 2nd round last year and Atlanta I think it was drafted him in like the 16th, he chose college. No biggie! :)Quote:
Originally Posted by *BaseClogger*
Matt den Dekker... Now that's a name.
Nope, of all the posts here, your post is actually most off the mark. The slotting system you speak of exists in baseball where it is actually published by the Commissioner's Office. There is no league-endorsed system in football. Many times guys who slide in the football draft end up demanding higher bonuses than other guys selected around them (see Brady Quinn as an example.)Quote:
Originally Posted by Austin Kearns
The Rangers (who picked one pick after the Reds) didn't seem to think Scheppers wasn't worth the selection. They are not a big market team, and they actually selected a high school pitcher in the first round who is demanding a contract on par with the largest high school contract ever given to a pitcher. Crying poor here is a farce. All I have to say is they better be major players in the international market this year if they don't take on some payroll with a strong midseason acquisition.
I don't mind passing on Scheppers as much as you would think. But what I am annoyed at is the signability factor that seems to be tainting this draft for the Reds. I have no problem with the Leake pick, especially if they were hoping to spread some of the money around that they would have had to pay to a different first round selection (ie Crow or Matzek.) I assumed at the time that if Gibson or Scheppers fell to the second round, that would put the Reds in a perfect position to pounce. Too bad I overestimated them once again.
And FWIW, I hope that Boxberger becomes a star. Not saying he won't, but just saying I hope he wasn't taken because of his signabiliity (and Buckley's risk-aversion.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by OnBaseMachine
I'd be happy to see any of the following in Red:
Stassi
von Rosenberg
Songco
Jackson
Maddox
Volz
den Dekker
Bailey
FWIW, my ideal draft (selecting from players who were available at the time) today would have been:
8. Grant Green SS (taken 13)
43. Tanner Scheppers RHP (taken 44)
57. Andrew Oliver LHP (taken 58)
88. Max Stassi C (taken 91)
Okay it has to be stated from me the optimist. Mayo any of these guys who grade guys are what ? Yes that is correct unemployed baseball scouts. the as I will refer to him as the Box guy who knows really ? He has a live arm and now this is his day to day profession. We all view these players unknowingly and to often rate them on projections by scouting services. Reality wise how highly was Stewart, Heisey , Cozart, etc rated ? Judge a draft by its true body of work not by a few rounds. There is tons of guys who will be drafted in future with options to not sign and yes over paying those guys may induce them to sign. Reality wise if you can find 5 guys who see 1 year MLB regular service time that is a truly awesome draft!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Benihana
Have you even considered the possibility that the Reds maybe didn't draft Scheppers becuase they didn't like his medical information? Have you seen it, and are you qualified to pass judgement on it?
Every team passed on him at the end of the day. Are they all crying poor here?
I gotta agree with Kearns here, people are crying big time about choices they really know little about, vs. the opinions of teams who have heavily scouted (and actually seen) the players they choose.
That is true. Like I said in my post, I am not particularly all that upset about passing on Scheppers by itself. What I am upset about is that all signs point to every selection the Reds made on Tuesday being more about signability and less about talent. Even Billy Hamilton, a pick which I actually liked, was considered "very signable." I don't mind at all if the Reds passed on Scheppers for health or talent reasons. I do mind if it was all about the $$Quote:
Originally Posted by PuffyPig
You do know we are the Cincinnati Reds and not the Boston Red Sox or New York Yankees, correct? It's not like we can just sign whomever we want with no regard to money. Small market teams like us actually have to be a bit more frugal than others believe it or not.Quote:
Originally Posted by Benihana
I simply don't get all the whining from fans who want us to draft a player even if money will be an issue. It's not like this organization has millions to throw around. I'm not singling you out Beni, but there are dozens of others who are pissed because of a compensatory 1st round selection or even our 1st round pick because of $. As I've repeatedly stated and many others have said before, MLB's draft is more of a crapshoot than the other major sports drafts. Why get upset or angered?
DTCromer is right. With the fallibility factor in baseball draft picks being incredibly high you MUST factor in the dollars at some point, more so if you're mid or small market. To cry it's all about signability is sticking your head in the sand, imo. Should Cincinnati be the team setting bonus records for a HS arm like Matzek? Or coming close to record levels for a guy like Crow who shouts "Bad Mechanics"? I don't think so. Only two guys in this draft would have been worth a huge dollar gamble, imo, and they went 1-2. After Strasberg and Ackley there is a huge dropoff in pitching and hitting. There is a ton of depth following them on the next level, though and Leake fits perfectly well at or near the top of that group.
Boxberger was the reach but if you read all his reports there are lots of things to like, including a better fastball than Leake. Command is shaky but the biggest issue is can he keep his velocity in later innings? If not then he ends up a middle reliever. I'm not unhappy with Boxberger, per se, but I liked Oliver's arm a lot better.
A question for OBM or Doug or the other knowledgable posters on this board.
What makes Boxburger so much different from Alex White? I understand that the Reds' "reached" on him, but Boxburger seems to have similar stuff to White and they had similar numbers in similar conferences. What makes Boxburger such a bad pick? His stuff seems good at first glance and he does seem like he is healthy and will be another fast riser to arrive during this window to compete (2010-2012). Can I know what makes him so bad other than being a bit of a reach?
I suspect that the Reds will draft high ceiling, fallen talent in later rounds.Quote:
Originally Posted by Benihana
it's a normal Buckley draft. at the top, he drafts and SIGNS lower ceiling players that really study the game and hit the ground running. with the exception of last year, he also goes for need, and Leake slots well behind Cueto and Volquez, and fits a team with only a couple of pitchers on its "top" list. A lefty would have been even better but there wasn't one that really fit the Reds timetable. I'm sure that the Reds would have loved to have traded down, but it's not an option.
At a minimum, the overwhelming majority of us are not professional scouts on here and are, for the most part, just reading what other services seem to think about these guys.Quote:
Originally Posted by Edd Roush
Boxberger is a talented pitcher. Even Keith Law had him ranked higher than Andy Oliver, one of this year's draft darlings. He is ranked as a top 50 or 60 guy by many publications, so by no means is this a throw-away pick. I think the biggest issue that some people have is that they could have possibly gotten him in the 2nd or 3rd and taken a higher ranked guy with that pick.