ace3113

I don't think he's dropped so much as other guys have just emerged, similar to what happened with Drew Ward last year. He also did not play in the PG National that just happened like a month ago. If he goes to more events like the All-American Classic and such and performs well, he could easily jump back to where he was ranked prior to this year.

I'll post a more detailed one in a month or so, and again in the New Year probably. There's bound to be a few guys we haven't even heard of yet jump on the map like Bickford and Gray did this year.

Jim Callis says undrafted high school players can sign at any point (before they go to school). They're not subject to the signing deadline. Having said that, I don't see any of them signing for only 500k. Maybe Ronnie Healy who doesn't seem very academically inclined.

He would have to sign the waiver form prior to next year's draft.

This would be nice too. I wonder if he'll get back into 1st round consideration or fall to the comp round. I wouldn't mind taking him with our actual 2014 pick, even though he's not ranked in that range currently.

It's considered a week college class compared to HS, but there are some intriguing arms like Nola and Hoffman who could be there. Newcomb's profile reminds me of David Purcey for some reason, which makes me weary.

Oy, double post. lol

Thought I'd repost again to see who we "could" get next year at pick #11. At this early stage I want Tyler Kolek or Michael Cederoth, though they're ranked out of our range at present.

I found this quote interesting I wonder if they offered Hollon the absolute bare minimum thinking either they'll save money or get the 48 pick next year. I wonder if they did not expect Hollon to sign for so low given his commitment to Kentucky.

3 first round picks in next years draft = bananas. Power arms for days next year, man.

I wonder if they offered what was left to Tewes or Tanner Cable? There looks to be at least 500-600k left over.

Can't wait to see this guy driving home Barreto in the GCL.

Very happy with this news. We got Rowdy and Brentz for saving all that money from rounds 2-10 and at 11 in next years draft we should get an equivalent if not better talent to Bickford (Kolek please).

Not that it will mean much but just for reference: 158 Dominic Taccolini RHP HS Kempner HS, Sugar Land, Texas Texas 174 Ryan Sluder OF/RHP HS Amarillo (Texas) HS 186 Keegan Thompson RHP HS Cullman (Ala.) HS 206 Max Knutson LHP HS Mounds View HS, Arden Hills, Minn. Minn. 207 Robert Ziegler RHP HS Defiance (Ohio) HS 236 Ronald Healy C/1B HS Elev8 Sports Institute, Delray Beach, Fla.

5ip 3h 0r 0bb 3so tonight for Matt tonight against Boise.

I think I understand. The way I had interpreted your comment "I like the move" was that they punted the pick on purpose rather than as a by product of circumstance. It's hard to praise someone when something happens that was beyond the scope of what they expected or planned.

Yes, that was likely their mindset. Crawford and McGuire have been good in the early going too, so that stings a little more (although I wasn't a big Crawford or McGuire guy either).

You know you're right about that. In my uproar, I blatantly ignored the Jays own evaluation process and only saw mine and the industry consensus. Perhaps the Jays thought the exact opposite of me, that Bickford had a very high ceiling and a reasonable floor, while not seeing Shipley's ceiling as being as high as myself or some others. Only they'll know in the end. I'll take back calling their decision "retarded" simply because their thought process differed from mine. I'll just say simply that I don't agree with their final evaluation of Bickford as the top talent there (but who am I anyway. lol). I was being somewhat hyperbolic about this, but it has always been my feeling that the draft is such a crapshoot, that if you took a someone knowledgeable about the draft and had them make their picks, there is a pretty good chance that they will do better than some of the people paid to do the job. Using the game of craps analogy, you don't have to be an expert to go up to the table and hit on a winning roll. Some of the shadow drafts I've seen at minorleagueball over the years have been better than what a lot of those teams actually did. I'm not sure whether I'd be happier if we punted the pick on purpose or if it just happened that way (Caper seems to think we punted, or that's the impression he's leaving). I guess intent lends itself to praise or blame. We can't praise their move of punting if that wasn't their intention, conversely we can't blame them for picking Bickford if their strategy all along was to punt the pick. I'll be interested to hear what really happened.

Obviously one industry "expert's" word is not gospel, but there is a consensus among a lot of them when it comes to "punting picks" on purpose. I'll dig up quotes from others as well.

double post

The difference between Shipley's upside and Bickford's is not so wide as to disregard the following considerations. 1) Shipley's signed for cheaper. 2) Is much closer to the major leagues. 3) Has a higher chance of reaching his upside (given where he currently is in his development compared to Bickford). That's the usual. Trade off, upside for certainty. Usually I would go for upside (and that's Bickford), but given that Shipley's upside isn't low and his floor is high, he makes much more sense to me. If we're talking Bickford and Marco Gonzalez here that would be a different argument obviously, cause that would be: (Low ceiling/low risk vs. high risk/ high ceiling). I'm using Grant Holmes as an example because he's the best high school right hander currently ranked in our area. He might even move up into the top 7 when it's all said and done. You could use player X if you want. Player X is a high school pitcher. He throws in the mid 90s and has a projectable build. He throws a plus curveball already. Is this hypothetical player than Bickford, sure marginally. But that minor upgrade is not worth punting a pick for a year. My mistake. So we would be trading Bickford for roughly his 2014 equivalent? At best that seems like a lateral move to me. I don't see the disparity in talent at 10 to be that great. Heck, we should've punted Hollon if that's what we wanted, because the 47th pick next year will be significantly better than the 47th pick this year. That's what the depth is about.

No it's really not. At least not to the level you're suggesting. The DEEPNESS of the draft refers to the overall quantity of quality prospects. Pick number 11 next year is not going to be THAT MUCH better than Bickford (and I can give you a list right now for comparison), to the point that it's worth punting a pick. Every draft pundit from Callis, Sickels, Law, and the guys from BP and PG have said that punting a pick this year to get one next year isn't a sound strategy, no matter how good the draft seems to be for all the reasons I mentioned. Lost development time as in the high school guy we draft this year would be a year ahead of the guy we draft next year, and thus a year further away from helping us. Even if one were to argue we could take a college player next year and he would be further along than Bickford anyway, if we took a college player this year, he would be further along than the college player we take next year, and that's the only comparison that's really relevant (apples to apples). Baseball is a business. Money is a thing. Except that...um...their picks are protected next year, so they have more leverage than us.

We literally get a worse pick next year (11 instead of 10). Qualitatively, I don't think the nominal upgrade from let's say Phil Bickford to Grant Holmes is worth the lost development time, wasted resources, and loss of bargaining leverage (next year's pick won't be protected).

Players who can help beyond this year, like Dickey:p

I agree. You lose a year of development theoretically, and you wasted a bunch of resources this year to scout these players. Also the fact that next years draft is DEEP means the talent stretches out further than the top 10-20 picks to around 50-60, but that doesn't mean that the player we would get at 10 or 11 next year would be instantly better than Bickford. Looking at the list at present I would say they're only slightly better if not equal in talent and potential, which begs the question, what was the point?