Looking ahead to the 2018 draft

[Dirk41]

Let's go Sox!!

[Austinfan]

Meh, #1 or #2 (and they're unlikely to fall below #2), really doesn't mattter much unless there's one super prospect at the top of the draft.
Whomever they draft, a college player probably won't arrive until 2020-21 and a HS player a year later.
So this draft is more about sustaining a good team, not building one, and it's just a piece of the puzzle, along with continuing to trade for LA allocations and making good choices there.

[allentown]

Meh, #1 or #2 (and they're unlikely to fall below #2), really doesn't mattter much unless there's one super prospect at the top of the draft.

And if one guy clearly rises to the top then it matters a heck of a lot. Your meh attitude on this, and really so many things apart from your preferred way of team building, is puzzling. Now you mention continuing to trade for allocation. Just this summer, you attitude on that was beyond meh, it was something you thought was too costly and that there weren't enough guys worth getting beyond the basic allocation, and you preferred the flock of low cost signings anyway.

There are many advantages to getting the 1.1. First, it puts your scouts fully in charge to find and pick and sign the best guy. You aren't dependent as the Eagles were on Wentz of the 1.1 being Goff. It allows your deal to be finalized before draft day, giving optimal savings below slot. It gives you a larger pool of $. If gives you first pick on days 2 and 3, allowing your first pick of the day to be fully lined up in advance.

It certainly isn't meh to me. I want the 1.1. I suspect we don't get it, but I want it. Yes, our scouts may not select the best guy in the draft, but that in itself provides a chance to evaluate the scouting side, just as the Moniak pick does. At 1.2 or 1.5 or 1.7 it can be 'yes the guy didn't work out, but the guys we really wanted were taken before us and they turned out well, didn't they?' Having the 1.1 provides a special kind of accountability for everyone involved in the draft/negotiation process. That is vital information if top management is going to improve that part of the organization.

You are right that the best guy in the draft, in retrospect years later, often isn't the guy picked 1.1, but your chances of finding/signing that best guy are highest if you have the 1.1.

[Austinfan]

I was never opposed to trading for allocations, I just figure the cost will go up as teams weigh the option value of keeping their allocation (which doesn't cost them anything, they don't have to use it) v the value of the prospects they can obtain.

But the Phillies have the excess talent in the minors to trade for allocations, so why not?
I'm just skeptical of the value of additional money since once most of the top 30 are locked up, the margnal value of extra money declines, but there is real option value (late entrants, undiscovered gems, etc). However, when that option value worthy of sacrificing real prospects who are known quantities relative to 16 year old LA players?

In the end, good drafting and good trading is far more important than a little extra money in LA, #1/#2 (note the #1 player in most drafts is not the highest WAR from that draft) or buying a couple "name" free agents. It's sustained consistency by the organization that is the key, and of course, that's hard to do if you're cutting corners on scouting, player development and being competitive in LA and using all your draft money. But you don't have to throw money around like a drunken sailor, you do need to sustain a high level of organizational competence in all aspects of player acquisition and development.

[allentown]

I don't see spending 150% of allocation as spending like a drunken sailor, especially since the commish's new formula has us in the bottom rung of 3 llocation levels.

[Austinfan]

I'd also point out, that with the decline in comp picks that will be handed out under the new rules, the 2018 draft will give them a shot at a much better 2nd and 3rd rd pick than previous years. By the time you get out of the top 100, drafting becomes more idiosyncratic (i.e. Hoskins in the 5th one year, Martin in the 4th the next year), but the top 100 is where the majority of talent is found.

So the real key is to take advantage of a chance to have a "killer" draft by not just hitting on the first pick, but 2nd to 4th rds. The Phillies have been good later in the top 8 rounds (9 and 10th rounds are generally bonus saver picks), but they need to step up the early round drafting.

[zambonir]

I'd also point out, that with the decline in comp picks that will be handed out under the new rules, the 2018 draft will give them a shot at a much better 2nd and 3rd rd pick than previous years.

But this is also an argument for preferring #1 to #2, not that there is a serious argument against it. If there's an advantage to picking five or 10 spots higher in the second round due to fewer comp pick there's also an advantage to picking four or nine spots higher.

[Squire]

Right now I'm in the mode that Brice Turang is going to have to be the next Jeter/ARod or Harper or I'm taking Singer.

[schillingfan]

But the Phillies have the excess talent in the minors to trade for allocations, so why not?
I'm just skeptical of the value of additional money since once most of the top 30 are locked up, the margnal value of extra money declines, but there is real option value (late entrants, undiscovered gems, etc). However, when that option value worthy of sacrificing real prospects who are known quantities relative to 16 year old LA players?

I don't think people are advocating trading prospects for allocations. This year they traded veterans for allocations mid season.

Of course there may not be fungible gambles to trade

[Austinfan]

It's also a good argument for picking up some veteran trade bait for next summer.
But given the projected lineup, pitching is probably the only avenue for adding potential veteran trade bait, you're not sitting the young OFs for a veteran or Franco (play him or trade him).
Maybe a veteran catcher to help young pitchers start the season, but then you have to mvoe one.

So I suspect they will have to trade prospects next summer for allocations.

[teabag259]

I saw Turang play in the PG game. He isn't a 1-1 type of player. He will be a top 15 kid but isn't a Correa/Jeter level guy. He may not even be the best SS in the class.

[bigegypt0417]

Meh, #1 or #2 (and they're unlikely to fall below #2), really doesn't mattter much unless there's one super prospect at the top of the draft.

And if one guy clearly rises to the top then it matters a heck of a lot. Your meh attitude on this, and really so many things apart from your preferred way of team building, is puzzling. Now you mention continuing to trade for allocation. Just this summer, you attitude on that was beyond meh, it was something you thought was too costly and that there weren't enough guys worth getting beyond the basic allocation, and you preferred the flock of low cost signings anyway.

Amen.

The #1 pick...especially when it's decided so early can be crucial when a player emerges to be ahead of everyone else. AF seems to have something against anything that seems...elite.

lol

[Austinfan]

Except the top player in any draft is rarely the consensus #1 pick.

[bigegypt0417]

Except the top player in any draft is rarely the consensus #1 pick.

Why does that matter?

Having the first pick allows you to take any player you want. That is more ideal than not getting any player you want.

[VoteForKalas]

Why does that matter?

Having the first pick allows you to take any player you want. That is more ideal than not getting any player you want.

If the Phillies had a stellar track record of evaluating and drafting talent, it would be fantastic. Unfortunately, that is not the case and thus the jury is still out on the Phillies taking full advantage of their tanking approach

[bigegypt0417]

Why does that matter?

Having the first pick allows you to take any player you want. That is more ideal than not getting any player you want.

If the Phillies had a stellar track record of evaluating and drafting talent, it would be fantastic. Unfortunately, that is not the case and thus the jury is still out on the Phillies taking full advantage of their tanking approach

Are they a top 5 system and also moving guys to the big leagues?

I'm not sure what type of track record you're looking for since they've only had two years under this group.

Also, that response in no way actually disproves anything about having the #1 pick.

[Austinfan]

What it proves is having the #1 v #2 just isn't that big a deal unless a once a decade talent is at the top of the draft, and even then, where were Utley and Trout drafted?
They should have a top draft either way if they take advantage of favorable positioning at the top of the first 4 rounds.
This isn't the NBA, or even the NFL when a premier QB talent is at the top of the draft (but where was JJ Watt drafted?).

Point is I'd much rather see some young players have big Septembers (see Hoskins) than get the top pick in next summer's draft.
Now if you missed out because Nava and Floriman are lights out and Garcia does his best Lidge 2008 imitation, well, that would suck.
But I'm not losing sleep over it.
But if you miss out because Pivetta and Leiter are hot, Williams is stroking, Franco finishes strong, etc., screw the top pick.

[allentown]

The scouts should certainly be able to identify a very good prospect to draft at 1.1 -- one who will sign for reasonable $. Even the 'best prospect', especially if that prospect is a pitcher, and especially if that prospect is H.S. has a reasonable probability of going bust through injury or failure to develop as planned. The odds of getting a first-division MLB starter, let alone a star, are closer to zero than they are to 1.00, except in the exceptional years when one guy rises head and shoulders above the others and also possesses the safer characteristics of being a collegian and not being an over-worked pitcher.

So, we are looking at probabilities of success and probabilities of stardom, and there aren't any over 50% out there. Let's say our scouts identify Moniak as having a 49% chance of being an MLB starting CF and a 25% chance of being a star, and that those are the highest probabilities of success on our scouting board. Even if Moniak never becomes more than a defense-first, 4th OF, the scouts may still be right. He may have had the highest chance for success and most teams may have agreed with that assessment. The person who turns out to be 'best in draft' may be a H.S. pitcher, who escapes injury, improves secondary pitches beyond expectation, and adds more velocity to his FB. Nobody may have given him even a 10% chance of being an ace, but he wins 2 CYs. Some team got lucky. He was 5th on their board, but he fell to them and their top 4 were gone.

Harper fell to 1.25. We got Howard and Hoskins in the 5th round. I doubt any of these guys sat atop the draft board of the team which drafted them. Team after team passed on them. Is that bad scouting? I think even the best scouting misses guys.

[allentown]

But if you miss out because Pivetta and Leiter are hot, Williams is stroking, Franco finishes strong, etc., screw the top pick.

But that is mixing apples and oranges and in no way shows that it is not a significant advantage to have the 1.1 pick. Yes, of course we want the kids to end the year on an up note. We also want the 1.1 pick. Both are rational things to want and they are in tension, unless we can lose enough games with all the kids playing great and losing lots of games because Kim makes an error per game and nonprospect relievers give up 3 runs per game.

It's like saying 'crap, we won the WS, now we have to pick last'. It is still a definite disadvantage to pick last.

[Austinfan]

All else held equal, it's better to pick higher than lower.
But all else ISN'T equal, to get the top pick, the Phillies have to be lousy the next 35 games or so, which means a lot of young players aren't playing well.
And that's worse than picking #3 rather than #1.
Because I'd rather see actual prospects perform at the ML level than get a slighty better prospective prospect.