Reds Draft Critique

[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]

Every year talent drops in the MLB draft due to signability concerns. The ability to get a solid first round talent at both #17 - and at #30 or 35 - adds value.

You don’t “punt” on 17, hyperbole, but you might stick to players who will sign for around slot value or less. Then get a second high level talent shortly thereafter.

Blowing your cash advantage on a first pick works for a Hunter Greene at #2. But at #17 the super prospect may not be there. Of course, if Reds really love someone at 17 and have to spend on him, so be it.

[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.

[DocRed]

Benny is the only HS player I would pick at 17...gimme Bachman, Mikulski and Norby today and I will be happy.

[15fan]

You don’t “punt” on 17,

On the topic of punting a pick, I looked up the pick Jimbo used on Jeremy Sowers. Sowers was picked at #20 in the 2001 draft.

I'm stunned that 20 years have passed since that fiasco.

[JaxRed]

Well with 2 out of three bats being college bats, I'm 66.7 percent happy. Our system needed bats, so I preferred them to pitchers with these early picks. I still think they find some good arms within first 5 rounds.

[Benihana]

Well with 2 out of three bats being college bats, I'm 66.7 percent happy. Our system needed bats, so I preferred them to pitchers with these early picks. I still think they find some good arms within first 5 rounds.

You should be ecstatic with how this draft shook out for the Reds.

I’m much more of a HS guy than most, but I’m ok with this draft. Would’ve preferred Khalil Watson to fall one more spot, and would’ve liked to have gotten a couple more pitchers and maybe taken a chance on one of the high priced HSers in the 3rd round but se la vi. The Abbott pick was probably my favorite.

My ideal draft (taking guys within a few spots of where they were taken) would’ve been something like:

17: Khalil Watson
30: Ty Madden
35: Jon Allen
53: Andrew Abbott or Josh Baez

[JaxRed]

This was about perfect in my mind. I would have taken Khalil Watson if he was still there and then not take Allen if it happened. There are still thing to worry about . The Pac 12 scrappy gym rat curse for McLain, the curse of Okey for Nelson.

But the new regime has done everything but put up a billboard to say they like college arms over HS. Which is the right move. We split 7 offense and 5 pitching and concentered on the hitters in the beginning (5 of first 7). A recognition of what I saw in the prospect pipeline. Other than Berrera, the cupboard is bare.

PS - After the first 10 anyone is fair game.

[Sea Ray]

Speaking in terms of big picture, what's an over/under for a draft class?

3 eventual major leaguers?
1 starter?

[JaxRed]

I'd like to thank the Reds for heeding my advice. 19 of 20 College draftees!!!

[madeirawood]

I'd like to thank the Reds for heeding my advice. 19 of 20 College draftees!!!

So the Reds used to have two Dominican teams, Rookie level teams in Greeneville and Billings, and of course the developmental site in Arizona. Five teams below A ball. Now they have two. So the dearth of rookie level ball is basically being replaced by university level ball.

[podgejeff_]

Speaking in terms of big picture, what's an over/under for a draft class?

3 eventual major leaguers?
1 starter?

I've read if you get one starter and one bench player you've had a good draft.

[membengal]

I don't know where to put this note, so I will place it here:

@PramanaLabs
·
2m
Teams just aren't drafting first basemen in the first twenty rounds anymore. From 1975 to 2009 the trend upward was clear, but dropped off a cliff from there. The first 1B taken this year was at pick 63.
@jjcoop36

[Kinsm]

I've read if you get one starter and one bench player you've had a good draft.

Typical draft class has about 240 eventual major leaguers in it, so about 8 draftees per team. Only half of them will achieve 2 years of service in the majors. About 60 will ever reach the 6 years of service needed to reach free agency.