Lillian

OK, I give up. I thought that he had made a significant enough change in his mechanics and approach, to get him to the point that he might be a passable number 9 hitter, with great speed and defense. The buzz around Spring Training, which lauded his new approach and how good he looked, gave me hope that he might realize his potential. Then, he had a very good Spring. That, coupled with the fact that he really had been a football player, and needed time to learn to hit, were all "straws" to grasp onto. Unfortunately, he has really struggled, so far this season, and may be just about out of chances. As others have said, whoever plays CF now, is probably merely a "place holder,' with the promising crop of farm hands, who will eventually vie for the job.

Where exactly would you play him?

Good point. That was one of the intriguing factors. If the Sox took him at #4 and he were ranked #5, or #6, I guess that it's of no significant benefit. Would it even be considered under slot? I confess that I don't know exactly how the system works, in that respect. I assume that the money is almost the same between $4 and $5, correct? Here is India's stat line: AVG .384 OBP .525 SLG .780 2B 11 3B 3 HR 16 RBI 40 BB 43 SO 38 SB 11 CS 2

Yes, and earlier today, India hit another HR, with 2 RBI's and walk

You just echoed my point. Of course, you don't "take a guy in a lower tier, because of organizational need". There is no argument there and I'm not suggesting that. I stated that when there are several players, all of whom are rated very closely, with no consensus regarding who is the best, that is when other considerations could be valid. At this point Madrigal and India are a couple of places apart in the ranking. Several mock drafts have Madrigal at #4 and India at #5 or 6. That is clearly the same tier. And if you move Madrigal to SS or 3RD, those same rankings could well end up being reversed. You do make a very good point, regarding staying within the same tier. It really is not as significant what number pick a team has, as how much separates the selections in question. This year, most drafts seem to say that Mize is a clear #1 and it gets very crowded and subjective after him. Therefore, even drafting as high as #2, you can't really state that anyone is clearly "the best player available". There is simply no consensus. Who would you put in that second tier, following Mize?

This "best player available" concept continues to be a source of debate. Here is a circumstance where it gets a little more complicated. Team A is in a rebuild and targets a date 3 years down the road, when they estimate their window of contention will open. They have some really high level, elite prospects, who are just beginning their Major League careers, but are anticipated to be the cornerstones of the rebuild. Those couple of players are pretty much set, as far as their positions go. At the same time, there are a few holes, which are likely to have to be filled, to complete the rebuild. Now, the front office uses a very high draft pick, to take a guy, who is expected to be ready to contribute, just about the same time that their window of contention opens. Unfortunately, he is pretty much pegged at one of the positions, which are already taken by one of those key, young core players, and is not a likely candidate to fill one of the holes. Ok, so you can trade the pick. The problem is that you are trading him, before he has maximized his value, because he hasn't yet logged any significant playing time in the Majors. Nevertheless, he has no place to play, and other teams know that. You therefore end up trading him, from a disadvantaged position, and not receiving full value. From one perspective, it can make sense to think about who fits best, all other things being equal. If you have your pick of several players, who are all ranked about the same, which seems to be the case in this year's draft, what is wrong with picking a guy who fits? It comes down to the simple fact that it may not be obvious who that "best player available" is. In the that circumstance, what is wrong with selecting the guy who could fill a need, versus a player, who will likely be blocked? Perhaps I'm stating the obvious, but so often reading the assertion that; "it's just better to take the "best player available", justifies reiterating that it's not always that simple. Moreover, a player might be the "best player available," at a particular position, but not necessarily, if he moves to another position. Madrigal is a case in point. To me, he is the best second baseman in the draft. If you move him to short, he may be adequate, but perhaps not the best SS available. We know that Moncada is a lock at second base, probably until he becomes a free agent. I really don't want a guy at SS who is not an outstanding defensive player. Therefore, while Madrigal is a very polished hitter, abeit without significant power, he is not an elite SS. If I'm drafting #4, I want a guy who could be elite, at his position.

Just for fun, for me, I'm trying to decide my personal preference, among the college players, which I prefer. Would most of you rank the college arms as follows: Mize, Singer, McClanahan and the college bats: Madrigal, Bohm, India and Bart, in that order?

I love our pitching prospects, and their potential is indeed very intriguing. The thing that really worries me is the injury risk. It has gotten to be such a major issue, in this era. It's a little ironic, in that Tommy John Surgery has saved many careers, yet there seem to be so many more young pitchers experiencing the injury, requiring TJS. They throw so many fewer pitches, yet they get injured so frequently. It seems like you have to have a significant stock pile of good pitchers to help mitigate the risk. I remember the days when Billy Pierce, Early Wynn, Gary Peters and those guys would take the mound, every 4TH day and go the whole 9 innings, unless they just didn't have it. My, how the game has changed.

I think you're right, "Flash". It's hard to have too much good pitching and very expensive, as well risky, to buy it, in free agency.

Actually, it's not a piece, which is exclusive for subscribers, I don't think, because I'm not. If you want to read their mock draft, you have to subscribe, but the article was available. In any case, here is what it said: “There’s one player that will be first on all 30 draft boards,” said one scouting director. “And the second player will be totally different on all 30 boards.” There is no clear No. 2 player in this class right now, and the second player on one preference list may be 10th on someone else’s board. That kind of uncertainty will likely lead to plenty of deal-making. As one agent put it, the top 10 will be filled with players making below-slot deals, finding the best landing spot they can in a draft where teams may not be completely sold on anyone. As we get closer and closer to the draft, the college bats are rising to the top. Players like Jonathan India, Joey Bart and Alec Bohm have the kind of production against top-level competition that can make analytics departments happy, with the tools to appeal to scouts as well."

I just received this relevant article, in my email: https://www.baseballamerica.com/stories/2018-mlb-mock-draft-picks-1-35/?utm_source=180511_newsletter&utm_medium=email

Ok, I understand. He is your favorite. That's fine. We all have our own opinion, and I respect that. I like the player too. I just would prefer someone else, with our #4 pick.

If they think that there is clearly a better player than India available, at #4, I'd prefer that they take that player. I'm just not sold on Madrigal, for the Sox. Perhaps they will go with a college arm. This entire concept of "best player available" is valid. The problem is that, in this year's draft, there doesn't seem to be a clear consensus about who is the best player, not even at #1 or 2. It all becomes very subjective, when there is no clear consensus. Can one really argue that Madrigal is "clearly" a better player than India? Then too, there is the possibility of exploiting the rankings, by selecting an under slot player, and thus having more money to spend, in a later pick. But then, I'm sure that you know that.

I haven't read any specific assertion that Madrigal can't play third, but it is pretty unanimous that he profiles best at second. If you find a scouting report that suggest he could play third, that would be interesting to know.

Thank you for the clarification. I don't subscribe to Baseball America and therefore didn't know anything more than the reference to their quote, in this Future Sox article. In any case, I'm glad to hear that the Sox may prefer India.

I'm with Baseball America and prefer India, to Madrigal. He provides more flexibility, with the ability to play third, short or second. India is putting up an even better OBP, in a tougher conference and, of course, he provides power potential, which Madrigal does not. Moreover, although I understand that, at #4, you pick the best player available, Madrigal is not clearly the best player. Therefore, it makes sense to think about how he would fit into the rebuild. If there is one player on this young team, who is a lock to be there, when the contending window opens, it's Moncada, and he is not going to move off second base, which happens to be just about the only place Madrigal profiles. He is just 2 years younger than Moncada. That pretty much negates the advantage of Madrigal being capable of being fast tracked to the Majors. He could indeed be ready for the "Big Show," in 2020, but would not have a place to play. It just doesn't make sense for the Sox to pick him. Oh sure, they could take him and then trade him, but that only makes sense if he is clearly the best player available, and that is not the case.

I quoted MLB Pipeline, in a previous post. on page 5 of this thread, or you can simply go to his page, where he is listed as the Sox' #1 prospect, on the "Top 30" list.

Based upon that fact that he does not possess much speed, or a strong, accurate arm. I think that he can be adequate, but not a plus defender, in the outfield. Many here complain about Avi's defense. At least he can run and throw.

If the Sox end up being short an outfielder, or two, which I doubt, they can acquire one. Making room for the other top prospects is only part of the thought process here. Eloy just does not appear to possess the tools to ever be a plus defensive outfielder. I'd like to see good defense in all 3 outfield spots.

My urgency is motivated by the need to give him time to learn the position. He is going to be hard to keep in the Minors and learning how to play first, at the MLB level, wouldn't be ideal.

What is it that you find dubious about the assertion that he profiles better as a first baseman? He is big, tall, slow, with a below average arm. The only thing that would make him any better suited to play first, would be if he were left handed. However, that doesn't seem too important anymore, as there are many right handed first basemen. He certainly doesn't profile as a very good outfielder.

Now you're talkin', "Baker". Finally, someone who agrees with me. From yet another perspective, think of it this way. If Eloy were at first and 3 of the other 4 comprised the outfield, and a good defensive one indeed, there really wouldn't be any holes to fill on that future roster. With Anderson and Moncada, as the keystone combo, Collins and Zavala behind the plate and my projected 4TH pick, India at 3RD ?, this roster would look pretty good. It would even satisfy my "obsession" for some left handed thunder: Moncada, Collins, Basabe/Rutherford. That leaves DH for Abreu, if he is resigned, or whomever. Eloy profiles much better as a first baseman than an outfielder, and the injury risk is less there, as you point out. It will be interesting to see if this idea gets consideration, by the front office. Of course, it would likely be 2020, at the earliest.

Well, you're easy to please. I certainly will not consider it a win, if only two of those 5 become Major League regulars. I assume that you think Eloy and Robert are the most likely to succeed. If that were the case, wouldn't you be a little surprised and disappointed if Adolfo, Rutherford and Basabe all turned out to be busts?

I agree that, except for Eloy, they are a ways away from being Major Leaguers, however Eloy would need time to learn a new position. Why not start the process now, while he is still in the Minors? No one is blocking him at first base. Gillaspie has been awful at Charlotte, which is where Jimenez is likely headed and soon. This quote from MLB Pipeline, on Jimenez strengthens the argument: "Though Jimenez may not offer much beyond his bat, he still can become a superstar. As he has gotten bigger and stronger, he has slowed and now has below-average speed. His arm strength also has regressed and he recorded just six assists in his first four pro seasons, so he now projects as a fringy left fielder."

Looking at these birth dates, of our top 5 outfield prospects, should reinforce the notion of Eloy moving to 1ST Base: Basabe 8/96 Adolfo 9/96 Jimenez 11/96 Rutherford 5/97 Robert 8/97 The likelihood is very high that all 5 of these kids are going to be Major League regulars, if not stars. It would really help if one of them could play another position. Eloy does not possess good tools to play anywhere in the outfield. 3 of those guys are potential centerfielders, the best defensively being Robert and Basabe. Adolfo's average speed, and elite arm, play perfectly in RF. I don't know where they are going to find a spot for Rutherford, but he appears to be justifying the original hype. It's a shame that one of them couldn't play 3RD. In any case, let's hope that they all continue to blossom and that there will be room for all of them, on that championship team, in the next decade.