2020 MLB Draft Speculation

andyb 2020-05-13 21:11:20 UTC #102

The slots for rounds 6-10 last year averaged about $1 million per team. Since this year's rules allow you to pay only the first $100K of a bonus this year, the real short term cost of rounds 6-10 would be $500K per team with the other $500K deferred.

If the pool operates the same as in the past, one could potentially have a much wider pool of "fliers" to choose from after round 5. The danger of drafting a risky HS prospect in the unprotected rounds 4 and 5 is probably too great for most teams. But if you go underslot with college seniors in those 2 rounds, you would then have $500K to throw at any undrafted free agent. More money if you want underslot in the top rounds.

If there is a chance that high ceiling HS prospects will not sign if drafted in the top 5 rounds, there is actually a pretty big case to load up on bonus money and see if some second tier HS prospects want to sign. It is risky to only have one drafted option. But if you had dozens of potential free agent options, you might find a taker.

zambonir 2020-05-13 22:04:38 UTC #103

I guess I'm confused. I thought you can only pay an undrafted free agent $20,000. Period. If you didn't spend $500K in the last two rounds of the draft you'd have to sign 100 free agents to use up that money. What teams can do is go underslot in rounds 1-3 and load up on bonuses in 4 or 5. Am I wrong or missing something here?

andyb 2020-05-13 22:23:16 UTC #104

They are a little unclear on it, but most of the articles point to the rules of the pool being similar to what was in place previously. A team's total pool is the sum of their slots in the top 5 rounds of players they signed. So you can save money and then potentially add to the $20,000 bonuses after that (which used to be the $125K limit after the 1oth round).

There is even speculation of teams breaking the pool limits this year (and potentially paying penalties and forfeiting number one picks in future drafts) by splurging after the 5th round. The Dodgers were the main speculation. Theory would be that they have the money to do it. The talent will be greater this year. And the Dodgers' lost future number ones (2 of them) would be low level picks anyway.

I don't think each team's slot money has to be used in the top 5 rounds. It is just harder to push it to the free agent market since the free agent base of $20K is less to start with than the previous $125K.

schillingfan 2020-05-14 01:03:30 UTC #105

If everyone is predicting the same d19 year old dude, I would guess the Phillies have signaled something.

Squire 2020-05-14 11:44:08 UTC #106

Callis First Mock

Tigers - Spencer Torkelson, 1B, ASU
Orioles - Austin Martin, OF, Vanderbilt
Marlins - Asa Lacy, LHP, Texa A&M
Royals - Emerson Hancock, RHP, Georgia
Blue Jays - Zac Veen, OF, HS (FL)
Mariners - Nick Gonzalez, 2B, NMSU
Pirates - Heston Kjerstad, OF, Arkansas
Padres - Max Meyer, RHP, Minnesota
Rockies - Reid Detmers, LHP, Louisville
Angels - Robert Hassell, OF, HS (KY)
White Sox - Patrick Bailey, C, NCState
Reds - Austin Hendrick, OF, HS (PA)
Giants - Garrett Mitchell, OF, UCLA
Rangers - Garrett Crochet, LHP, Tennessee
PHILLIES - CADE CAVALLI, RHP, OKLAHOMA:
The Phillies hope one of the better college position players gets to 15, but Cavalli's explosive fastball/curveball combination would be a nice consolation prize if that doesn't happen.

fish 2020-05-14 12:05:04 UTC #107

Cavalli has some injury red flags, but has real good velocity, feel for his slider, size, athleticism and low mileage - I would be happy with that pick.

Lawman 2020-05-14 13:45:34 UTC #108

Keith Law’s 2020 MLB mock draft: First-round projection 1.0:

15. Philadelphia Phillies: Austin Hendrick, OF, West Allegheny (Penn.) HS

Hendrick has huge exit velocities and raw power, but he’ll be 19 at the draft and didn’t get to play at all this spring, all of which seems to have cooled interest in him at the top of the draft.

Squire 2020-05-14 13:49:06 UTC #109

More and more I am coming to the realization that I have no idea what type of player tends to succeed. So other than a HS RHP, I think I will be OK with anyone they pick who seems to be valued at around the 12-18 range.

LoneStarPhan 2020-05-14 16:34:58 UTC #110

I would feel more confident with a college player. The Phillies need to add a good prospect who can go up the system (if there is even such a thing these days) quickly. I feel the Phillies have disappointed us far too often with HS outfielders in the first round.

fish 2020-05-14 18:51:34 UTC #111

After looking a bit more at Austin Hendrick he's starting to grow on me. His swing from a year ago was just awful- moving parts galore, but by the end of last year he really tightened it up and has been on the circuit long enough to have faced some good quality pitching.

flyers19rw 2020-05-14 19:00:16 UTC #112

IDK Squire. My first choice would be a college hitter since he would have a lengthier track record to examine. Second would be a college pitcher but even there, some of these guys get beat up from poor usage by their coaches. A HS arm that has not been abused has more appeal to me than a HS hitter. If the youngster has mechanics that can be improved, they would be my third choice.
Sorry but last on my list are HS bats. Few of these players have faced top pitching on a consistent basis. When they do, flaws can be found and the hitter gets exposed. Just look at the history of top picks that the Phillies have made on HS bats. Flops across the board and I don't think that the Phillies are an exception here. At least with the college bats, they have faced tougher competition and had some degree of success at that level.

zambonir 2020-05-14 21:56:15 UTC #113

Don't forget we have a new Scouting Director. I guess it is hard to glean anything about him from the Yankees' history, between their unique position and the fact that he wasn't the decision-maker.

My guess is the college streak continues.

fish 2020-05-15 03:25:04 UTC #114

The one college hitter that consistently seems to get ranked around the Phillies spot is UCLA OF Garret Mitchell. Really interesting guy- you can see why his hitting style could be worrisome- he crowds the plate to the extent that he could pull any strike, but he’ll still go the other way. It an approach a lot like Utley but not as pretty. I’m not sure what to think of the diabetes- long term durability seems like a common issue, but it doesn’t stop guys from putting up at least a couple of good seasons first.

flyers19rw 2020-05-15 15:36:34 UTC #115

Bob Clarke has diabetes. It was raised as an issue when he was being drafted. Turned out pretty well for the Flyers.

julio 2020-05-15 17:05:52 UTC #116

Anecdote.

That said... Diabetes - while it is in some sense a single condition - manifests differently, or perhaps better put, to different degrees, in different people. That one individual can successfully manage his diabetes and compete at a very high level for a long time doesn't tell us much about another individual.

I would think that, when considering drafting a diabetic, you look hard at three basic things:

First, is the talent/skill level there? Is the candidate potentially truly a major-leaguer? I wouldn't draft a kid with these kind of challenges if I projected him as an "organizational player."
Secondly, how severe does the condition appear to be? E.g., does the person require only dietary management? Once-a-day insulin injection? An implanted insulin pump with constant monitoring?
Finally, "makeup." Something that scouts have routinely tried to assess, apart from physical talent or degree of acquired skills. What is the character of the potential draftee? If he's going to have to manage diabetes daily, in addition to all the other challenges inherent in developing as a professional baseball player - does he have the strength of character to handle that? Obviously, not all potential draftees do. Teams routinely look at the makeup/character factor, but in a case like this, it becomes more central to the overall evaluation.

So, I wouldn't say, "Don't draft a diabetic." I would say, "Do your homework, and if the talent/skill thresholds are met, then focus more heavily on the makeup threshold than you would with a non-diabetic player, because the diabetic (or a candidate with a different situation that represents constant challenge/discipline issues - think Jim Eisenreich) is going to need a strong character to deal with it all."

Lawman 2020-05-15 17:26:42 UTC #117

Well said, @julio

zambonir 2020-05-15 17:53:16 UTC #118

I would think it is a plus as far as make-up - you know a certain amount of discipline and focus is already there, even without playing sports at a high level, and he probably is very conscious of nutrition too. But yes, can't really generalize.

Of course, there's also no way to know whether a player is going to be a good major-leaguer or "organizational." Sometimes you don't even know that when picking 1-1! You can only go with what your board says; I would think no player, diabetic or not, who projects as "organizational" is getting taken with this pick.

julio 2020-05-15 19:28:46 UTC #119

Agreed, not with a high pick, and not with any pick in a five-round draft. More generally, though, in 40-round drafts, it's pretty obvious that players have been drafted who had little chance at the majors, to fill out minor-league rosters.

andyb 2020-05-15 19:57:27 UTC #120

Draft officially scheduled on its expected dates. Held remotely of course. Round 1 at 7 PM June 10th. Rounds 2-5 at 5 PM June 11th.

julio 2020-05-15 21:23:44 UTC #121

Once again, I have to observe that this is really pathetic. They could easily conduct a five-round draft in a couple of hours. I mean, they still routinely have done 30 rounds in one afternoon (rounds 11-40 in recent drafts). The only reason they drag this out is to give the talking heads lots of time to talk, and give the sponsors lots of time to run advertising. It will be interesting to see how this plays out, if there are no likely draftees waiting in a studio to don hats or jerseys, and no remote cameras in the homes of likely draftees. We'll be left with Callis and Mayo talking to each other - possibly on remote links from their living rooms - and nothing else but long periods of... well, nothing.

They've got 150 picks (plus presumably all the competitive balance and QO-related picks), so maybe 170 picks total? They can do that in two hours, at 30 seconds between picks (which has been the standard for rounds 11-40, and used to be the standard for the whole draft back in the pre-TV days).

But of course, they prefer to insult our intelligence and subject us to hours of marketing...

EDIT: June 10 and 11! I just recalled that we have scheduled two weeks in the mountains in the first half of June... so I will most likely actually be pleasurably engaged (hiking in the woods, cooking, maybe get the canoe out...). I'll probably be reading about the draft, after-the-fact, right here!