Reds Draft Critique

[JaxRed]

It's a very short (2 drafts) run for the new (post Buckley) drafting crew. And one draft was a very short 5 round affair. One trend was readily apparent. Avoiding HS pitchers. The Reds only drafted 2 in 2019, with 33rd and 36th picks, and the 33rd didn't sign. In the shortened 2020 draft they drafted none.

And the early returns on the philosophy of drafting college pitchers has so far paid off. Lodolo and Ashcraft are top prospects. Even their severe underslot signing Kravetz has looked good in the very short time he has been healthy.

In the 2020 draft, all 3 college pitchers taken were getting rave reviews before coming up with injuries, two of the three have just started back up. Bonin had one Low A start and it was 5 perfect innings with 11 K's. Roa has had 2 short ACL outings with 6.1 innings pitched and a 0.00 ERA. Hopefully coming to Daytona soon.

Bottom line is college pitchers doing well.

The other trend is HS hitters (with one JUCO kid with 1 year of JUCO) in the first 5 rounds. We drafted 3 in 2019. All 3 had mediocre at best 2019 seasons, and this year Hines and Johnson are mediocre again. Callihan wasn't doing badly, until he got injured and out for season with some unknown aliment.

In 2020 our #1 was HS hitter and then our supplemental #2 and #4 were. Hendrick is hitting below .200. Miller has never been healthy enough to play one inning and Wainright is in legal trouble.

The Reds supposedly were going to use 2020 #4 on HS hurler Case Williams. We still got him in a trade, and he stinks so far too. Do we have any hitters who have exceeded expectations in last 2 drafts? Yes!! College hitter TJ Hopkins.

To me this screams pick college players with the top picks. If we had skipped Hendrick, we could have taken who the Brewers did and have a 22 year old CF who did great in High A and has just been promoted to AA. (Garrett Mitchell). We don't seem to pick HS kids well for whatever reason.

Let's go college for our first 3 rounds.

[WrongVerb]

With the first four picks, I wouldn't mind at least one high-ceiling HS bat. That said, I don't think that player is Bennie Montgomery.

[Kc61]

This draft is unusual for Reds with two early comp picks, 30 and 35. Along with this comes a high $ spending pool.

Reds’ gambit here will be to use some of these dollars to lure somebody very good after the first round. Probably the #30 pick guy, although maybe later, maybe more than one.

This could be a HS player with a serious college commitment. Other teams may allow such a player to slide due to signability concerns. Reds could use their high dollar pool to nab him (shifting money via some underslot signings).

[Bourgeois Zee]

This draft is unusual for Reds. They have two early comp picks, 30 and 35. Along with this comes a high $ spending pool.

Reds’ gambit here will be to use the extra dollars to lure somebody very good after the first round. Probably the #30 pick guy, although maybe later, maybe more than one.

This could be a HS player with a serious college commitment. Reds might overpay to get someone like that.

The mix of early picks could depend on finding available guys a bit later but having high talent level. They probably know who the likely guys are already, even a few days before the draft.

That likely means at least one underslot deal for a guys who's not quite at the level he's ranked.

I'm hoping that Jaden Hill or Gage Jump are in the mix, as well as Gunnar Hoglund, Mikulski, and Tyler Black.

[Kc61]

That likely means at least one underslot deal for a guys who's not quite at the level he's ranked.

I'm hoping that Jaden Hill or Gage Jump are in the mix, as well as Gunnar Hoglund, Mikulski, and Tyler Black.

Because of the high $ pool and the two comp picks, it’s a pretty exciting draft for the Reds. They could walk away from this with a number of serious prospects, if they play their cards right. Some mentioned in the quoted post have been suggested as underslot draftees in articles I’ve seen.

[M2]

This draft is unusual for Reds with two early comp picks, 30 and 35. Along with this comes a high $ spending pool.

Reds’ gambit here will be to use some of these dollars to lure somebody very good after the first round. Probably the #30 pick guy, although maybe later, maybe more than one.

This could be a HS player with a serious college commitment. Other teams may allow such a player to slide due to signability concerns. Reds could use their high dollar pool to nab him (shifting money via some underslot signings).

The one thing I don't want them to do is take a bargain pick with their first pick so they can splurge at #30. Just take whoever you think is the best player at #17 when you have the largest possible selection and pay that guy. They can always save some bucks on a Mikulski pick at #30 or #35, or just rack up savings in rounds 6-10. Yet order from the top shelf to start the night and then shift to the rotgut later.

[Kc61]

The one thing I don't want them to do is take a bargain pick with their first pick so they can splurge at #30. Just take whoever you think is the best player at #17 when you have the largest possible selection and pay that guy. They can always save some bucks on a Mikulski pick at #30 or #35, or just rack up savings in rounds 6-10. Yet order from the top shelf to start the night and then shift to the rotgut later.

Guessing it may not go this way. Just spitballing, but it would seem risky to pay big at #17.

If Reds do, they then spend the draft looking for bargains - and the better bargains, like Mikulski, could be gone. If Reds lock in cost savings early - maybe even at #17 - then they’re free to spend as needed at #30, 35 or whenever.

Not sure it’s a bad strategy here. #17 isn’t a top, top pick, so settling a bit there could be a key to a great overall draft. Would be different if Reds had a top 5 or even top 10 pick.

Just strategizing, there are lots of ways Reds can handle this.

[RED VAN HOT]

Guessing it may not go this way. Just spitballing, but it would seem risky to pay big at #17.

If Reds do, they then spend the draft looking for bargains - and the better bargains, like Mikulski, could be gone. If Reds lock in cost savings early - maybe even at #17 - then they’re free to spend as needed at #30, 35 or whenever.

Not sure it’s a bad strategy here. #17 isn’t a top, top pick, so settling a bit there could be a key to a great overall draft. Would be different if Reds had a top 5 or even top 10 pick.

Just strategizing, there are lots of ways Reds can handle this.

We don't know how the Reds' board looks. Mikulski could be much higher than the consensus of the scribes. The savings at #17 would be considerable. A lot depends on how much depth they see in lower ranked HS players with college commits.

[schroomytunes]

I actually see us taking a college pitcher with the first pick at #17, and then look at some of the HS kids at #30/#35. I would love something like this:

#17- Ryan Cusick RHP (Wake Forest) or Gunnar Hoglund RHP (Mississippi)

#30- Will Bednar RHP (Miss.St.) or Mike Mikulski LHP (Fordham)

#35- Chase Burns (RHP) TN HS, or James Wood (OF) NC HS

-I think its best to get college arms with first 2 picks then try to snag a top HS guy over slot at #35.

[M2]

Guessing it may not go this way. Just spitballing, but it would seem risky to pay big at #17.

If Reds do, they then spend the draft looking for bargains - and the better bargains, like Mikulski, could be gone. If Reds lock in cost savings early - maybe even at #17 - then they’re free to spend as needed at #30, 35 or whenever.

Not sure it’s a bad strategy here. #17 isn’t a top, top pick, so settling a bit there could be a key to a great overall draft. Would be different if Reds had a top 5 or even top 10 pick.

Just strategizing, there are lots of ways Reds can handle this.

That's a horrible plan. It means they punt on 12 guys just to overspend at #30 or #35, even though they had the money right there at #17. Crazy idea, how about take the top guy on your board at #17, #30 and #35?

[podgejeff_]

That's a horrible plan. It means they punt on 12 guys just to overspend at #30 or #35, even though they had the money right there at #17. Crazy idea, how about take the top guy on your board at #17, #30 and #35?

I agree with this so much.

Just pay slot at every spot. Go under if you can, or over if you have your guy at #17 and figure it out with the next pick or two.

The likelihood that anybody is turning down first round money for a chance to blow out their arm/knee or underperform over three years is practically nonexistent. And if it does happen, then we'll just get one of these picks a year later.

[Kc61]

That's a horrible plan. It means they punt on 12 guys just to overspend at #30 or #35, even though they had the money right there at #17. Crazy idea, how about take the top guy on your board at #17, #30 and #35?

Have to consider player signing demands. Team’s “board” isn’t the complete answer. Somewhere along the line Reds may have to diverge from their player evaluations because of player dollar demands.

[thorn]

How many rounds are there this year? And will it be done in 1 day or multiple days?

[WrongVerb]

How many rounds are there this year? And will it be done in 1 day or multiple days?

https://www.mlb.com/news/mlb-draft-o...draft-coverage

[Benihana]

If you’re just looking at the last two drafts, ok.

But if you look at Reds drafts from the last 20 years, they’ve been carried by HS bats: Joey Votto, Jay Bruce, Devin Mesoraco, Tucker Barnhart and Billy Hamilton from last decade. This decade it’s been Jesse Winker, Tyler Stephenson, Jeter Downs and even Taylor Trammell that’s carried the bag. Much more effective than HS pitchers like Robert Stephenson and Nick Travieso, or college pitchers like Nick Howard and Wyatt Strahan. Or even college hitters like Phillip Ervin, Alex Blandino, and Jeff Gelalich (dare I include #2 overall pick Nick Senzel as a potential massive disappointment?)

Michael Lorenzen has been decent when healthy. Jonathan India is suddenly looking good after teetering on the bust path for the last few years, and Hunter Greene is obviously a great prospect. But looking back at this organization’s drafts, I don’t think one could or should at all rule out HS hitters as a general rule. Ruling out HS players in general is even crazier.

And by the way, neither Austin Hendrick nor Rece Hinds have even logged 100 ABs in their professional careers at this point. Are you really ready to write them off as terrible picks?!