Jonathan Mayo Mock Draft

[SoxFan1]

#3 overall picks since 2000:

 

2013 - P Jonathan Gray

2012- C Mike Zunino

2011 - P Trevor Bauer

2010 - 3B Manny Machado

2009 - OF Donavan Tate

2008 - 1B Eric Hosmer

2007 - 3B Josh Vitters

2006 - 3B Evan Longoria

2005 - C Jeff Clement

2004 - P Philip Humber

2003 - P Kyle Sleeth

2002 - P Chris Gruler

2001 - P Dewon Brazelton

2000 - SS Luis Montanez

[Jake]

Hope we get ourselves a real Josh Vitters!

[SoxAce]

So since 2005, MLB teams have gotten an impact player once every two years.. (Longoria, Hosmer, Machado, and we'll see on Zunino)... I like our odds.

[southsider2k5]

Hope we get ourselves a real Josh Vitters!

 

I'm rooting for a Phil Humber.

[GreenSox]

With the recent additions of Eaton and Davidson, does the change our outlook on the draft? Go after best pitcher available?

Always go after the best player available, particularly when drafting high. If we're drafting for current ML team needs, we're doing it wrong. Edited December 18, 2013 by GreenSox

[Rowand44]

Always go after the best player available, particularly when drafting high. If we're drafting for current ML team needs, we're doing it wrong.

Yup. It's baseball, never ever draft for need.

[ChiliIrishHammock24]

Yup. It's baseball, never ever draft for need.

 

I disagree. I think you draft for need when there is no consensus pick. If a consensus top 5 pick falls to pick 20, then you go ahead and take him. But if you are the #3 pick and mock drafts have 3-4 different names going there, you can pick based on position if your scouting reports have them all going that high. I mean, it's hard to compare a pitcher to a 1B, for instance.

[Lillian]

I disagree. I think you draft for need when there is no consensus pick. If a consensus top 5 pick falls to pick 20, then you go ahead and take him. But if you are the #3 pick and mock drafts have 3-4 different names going there, you can pick based on position if your scouting reports have them all going that high. I mean, it's hard to compare a pitcher to a 1B, for instance.

 

That is a very compelling argument, with which I totally agree. I don't know why people don't concur.

Everyone talks about what a "crap shoot" the baseball amateur draft is, and then they proceed to insist that "you take the best available talent". "Best talent" based upon what exactly?

 

Of course, it will be a while before some of the draftees would be ready to be added to the roster, and it's true that the roster could look very different. However, why continue to stock pile a particular position, when you might have a choice to add a player where there is an obvious dearth of future candidates in your organization?

 

As long as there is no clear consensus as to who is the third best talent in the draft, why not pick one of the top candidates based, at least in part, upon perceived needs?

 

[beautox]

With Hahn and the advanced scouts doing a great job reloading the ml team with real talent that has upside, and MI being a relative strength for the sox: Semien, Sanchez, Anderson, Johnson. I would prefer the sox go with what they can develop very effectively, pitching. I doubt Rodon is there at 3 but Hoffman has top of the rotation stuff to compliment Sale and Quintana, knowing the sox philosophy as well, it wouldn't surprise me in the least to see him fast tracked.

[Lillian]

With Hahn and the advanced scouts doing a great job reloading the ml team with real talent that has upside, and MI being a relative strength for the sox: Semien, Sanchez, Anderson, Johnson. I would prefer the sox go with what they can develop very effectively, pitching. I doubt Rodon is there at 3 but Hoffman has top of the rotation stuff to compliment Sale and Quintana, knowing the sox philosophy as well, it wouldn't surprise me in the least to see him fast tracked.

 

I agree, and the fact that Hoffman is a RH starter is another plus. Sale, Quintana and Hoffman would look pretty solid at the top of the rotation in a couple of years.

[Y2Jimmy0]

That is a very compelling argument, with which I totally agree. I don't know why people don't concur.

Everyone talks about what a "crap shoot" the baseball amateur draft is, and then they proceed to insist that "you take the best available talent". "Best talent" based upon what exactly?

 

Of course, it will be a while before some of the draftees would be ready to be added to the roster, and it's true that the roster could look very different. However, why continue to stock pile a particular position, when you might have a choice to add a player where there is an obvious dearth of future candidates in your organization?

 

As long as there is no clear consensus as to who is the third best talent in the draft, why not pick one of the top candidates based, at least in part, upon perceived needs?

 

Best talent based upon your draft board. Teams have a giant board and put the players in order based on their scouting methods. Teams should then trust their board and pick the top guy on it. While I would love another high ceiling position player at #3, if Jeff Hoffman is available the Sox probably have to take him. I understand what you are saying but it's not the NFL or the NBA. In baseball, it is imperative to stock your system with as much talent as possible. One organizational goal could be to stockpile middle infield prospects for example. Let's say for argument's sake that the Sox were picking 9th in the draft. Lets also say that the top 2 middle infield guys are already off the board. Instead of taking the 3rd best middle infield prospect at #9, it would be better to take the best 1B that happens to still be on the board. It's about value and stocking the system with as much of it as possible. Now in the later rounds, drafting for need absolutely happens.

[witesoxfan]

I disagree. I think you draft for need when there is no consensus pick. If a consensus top 5 pick falls to pick 20, then you go ahead and take him. But if you are the #3 pick and mock drafts have 3-4 different names going there, you can pick based on position if your scouting reports have them all going that high. I mean, it's hard to compare a pitcher to a 1B, for instance.

 

I completely disagree with this. If you have a stacked pitching staff and a mediocre to bad offense, and you have Corey Curveball, a great starting pitcher, rated higher than Hank Homer, a power hitter outfielder, then you take Corey Curveball. Every time.

[ptatc]

That is a very compelling argument, with which I totally agree. I don't know why people don't concur.

Everyone talks about what a "crap shoot" the baseball amateur draft is, and then they proceed to insist that "you take the best available talent". "Best talent" based upon what exactly?

 

Of course, it will be a while before some of the draftees would be ready to be added to the roster, and it's true that the roster could look very different. However, why continue to stock pile a particular position, when you might have a choice to add a player where there is an obvious dearth of future candidates in your organization?

 

As long as there is no clear consensus as to who is the third best talent in the draft, why not pick one of the top candidates based, at least in part, upon perceived needs?

When in doubt go pitching. About half the roster is pitching. Most position players have limited flexibility in positions. If you stock pile pitching, you can always trade it for position players (Reed for Davidson, Santiago for Eaton). Every team needs pitching all the time.

[Rowand44]

I disagree. I think you draft for need when there is no consensus pick. If a consensus top 5 pick falls to pick 20, then you go ahead and take him. But if you are the #3 pick and mock drafts have 3-4 different names going there, you can pick based on position if your scouting reports have them all going that high. I mean, it's hard to compare a pitcher to a 1B, for instance.

I 100 percent disagree. The odds of a draft pick being a starting major league player aren't very high no matter what pick you have. If you draft on need instead of who you think is the best available then you're furthering those odds. Just because there is no consensus nationally doesn't mean there's not a consensus in the Sox organization.

[Rowand44]

That is a very compelling argument, with which I totally agree. I don't know why people don't concur.

Everyone talks about what a "crap shoot" the baseball amateur draft is, and then they proceed to insist that "you take the best available talent". "Best talent" based upon what exactly?

 

Of course, it will be a while before some of the draftees would be ready to be added to the roster, and it's true that the roster could look very different. However, why continue to stock pile a particular position, when you might have a choice to add a player where there is an obvious dearth of future candidates in your organization?

 

As long as there is no clear consensus as to who is the third best talent in the draft, why not pick one of the top candidates based, at least in part, upon perceived needs?

Because even if you assume 3b or cf or whatever is take. Up for 5 years there's always a possibility that Eaton or Davidson bust. It'd be silly to not take a guy that you believe is the best player available because you think you have those spots filled, especially when you're probably looking 2-3 years down the road.

[witesoxfan]

Because even if you assume 3b or cf or whatever is take. Up for 5 years there's always a possibility that Eaton or Davidson bust. It'd be silly to not take a guy that you believe is the best player available because you think you have those spots filled, especially when you're probably looking 2-3 years down the road.

 

If the Sox had David Price, Chris Sale, and Carlos Rodon, I don't think people would say "the Sox need to diversify their rotation because you can't have 3 lefties with mid 90s fastballs and good sliders." I think they'd say "they have the best 1-2-3 in the league."

 

In the best case scenario, you can trade one of those guys for a prospect at another position of need.

[Quin]

I'd like a pitcher.

 

I don't trust them with developing hitters yet.

[Lillian]

It's still all too early but...

 

I assume Rodon goes number one and I pray Hoffman gets passed on at two.

 

Whom would you take if Hoffman goes second?

[fathom]

It would be splendid if Hoffman and Turner have big time seasons in the upcoming college baseball year. If Hoffman can have a year like Gray did last year, and if Turner can have a dominating season like Bryant did (all-around game as opposed to hitting homers), then the Sox should be in great position to get a difference maker.

[ChiliIrishHammock24]

I completely disagree with this. If you have a stacked pitching staff and a mediocre to bad offense, and you have Corey Curveball, a great starting pitcher, rated higher than Hank Homer, a power hitter outfielder, then you take Corey Curveball. Every time.

 

Depends how much higher Corey Curveball is rated, I believe. If both these guys have been rated from #3 to #5, and you have the #3 pick, I don't see the issue drafting Hank Homer if no one can agree who is more highly rated. I mean, people here want Trea Turner so bad, but in the latest mock by Callis/Mayo, he is going #4 and #6. So would it be a huge mistake if the Sox chose him? I don't think so. There are about 3-5 guys I think the Sox could take and I wouldn't be upset about it, while in your scenario you are saying there will only be 1 guy who is the best available, so anything but taking him would be a mistake.

[fathom]

We should be in a great position regardless. It's a much stronger draft than last. With Rodon a shoe-in for the 1st pick barring an injury, we really pick second so come June we're going to have a choice A, probably Hoffman, and choice B who is the next best option.

 

It might be a deeper draft, but last year had 3 guys that all were deserving of being the first pick in the draft. This year, it would be great if another 2 or 3 can show they're worthy of that recognition.

[Y2Jimmy0]

It might be a deeper draft, but last year had 3 guys that all were deserving of being the first pick in the draft. This year, it would be great if another 2 or 3 can show they're worthy of that recognition.

 

 

None of those guys would go #1 in this year's draft though.

[fathom]

None of those guys would go #1 in this year's draft though.

 

But would they be ranked 2, 3 and 4 after Rodon? Rodon is one of the better #1 prospects in the last decade, as probably only Harper and Strasburg (maybe Price) would be picked above him.

Edited December 18, 2013 by fathom

[ChiliIrishHammock24]

But would they be ranked 2, 3 and 4 after Rodon? Rodon is one of the better #1 prospects in the last decade, as probably only Harper and Strasburg (maybe Price) would be picked above him.

 

I think Hoffman would be considered better than anyone in last year's draft. One of either Callis or Mayo said he could challenge Rodon for #1.

[BaseballNick]

As of today, I think I'm leaning toward Trea Turner. I really like the idea of a high floor SS with the ability to swipe some bases.