2015 MLB Draft

[Y2Jimmy0]

Way too early Top 15 Mock.

 

1. Texas: Michael Matuella RHP Duke

2. Houston: Phil Bickford RHP Cal State Fullerton

3. Colorado: Daz Cameron CF HS (Georgia)

4. Arizona: Brady Aiken LHP JUCO

5. Houston: Brendan Rodgers SS HS (Florida)

6. Minnesota: Nathan Kirby LHP Virginia

7. White Sox: Carson Fulmer RHP Vanderbilt

8. Boston: Riley Farrell RHP TCU

9. Cubs: Justin Hooper LHP HS (California)

10. Philadelphia: Kyle Funkhouser RHP Louisville

11. San Diego: Kyle Tucker OF HS (Florida)

12. Mets: Alex Bregman INF LSU

13. Cincinnati: Ryan Johnson OF HS (Texas)

14. Tampa Bay: Walker Buehler RHP Vanderbilt

15. Miami: Kyle Molnar RHP HS (California)

 

The White Sox could nab a real stud if they could get into the Top 5. Probably won't happen though.

[Boopa1219]

if you are saying that these prospects will be available for the sox to pick, est at their time.

I will say forget any hs'er, I still like the 2 of'er I mention the other day, and several other

pitchers. I am a little confuse on Alken and Bickford.

 

again, many thanks for you hard work/

 

Yes, these guys should available in the top ten. And I prefer HS talent to college players any day of the week, especially when it comes to position players. I so however feel comfortable drafting college pitching however.

[LDF]

Yes, these guys should available in the top ten. And I prefer HS talent to college players any day of the week, especially when it comes to position players. I so however feel comfortable drafting college pitching however.

 

for the sox, hs prospects I believe would not be of interest. the reason being is fastest way to

the majors. that is the only reason, I see some really talent in this yr hs'er but with the state of

the system at this point, I just don't see it.

[Y2Jimmy0]

for the sox, hs prospects I believe would not be of interest. the reason being is fastest way to

the majors. that is the only reason, I see some really talent in this yr hs'er but with the state of

the system at this point, I just don't see it.

 

 

Disagree. I think Rick Hahn and his staff will identify the best player and take that player regardless of how long it may take to get to the majors. They took Courtney Hawkins and Keon Barnum with back to back picks 3 years ago. 2 years ago they took Tim Anderson out of JuCo and their 2nd rder was HS RHP Tyler Danish. This year they took a HS RHP with their 2nd pick in Spencer Adams. If a HS player is the highest rated player on the board in round 1, I think they will take the high schooler.

[Boopa1219]

Disagree. I think Rick Hahn and his staff will identify the best player and take that player regardless of how long it may take to get to the majors. They took Courtney Hawkins and Keon Barnum with back to back picks 3 years ago. 2 years ago they took Tim Anderson out of JuCo and their 2nd rder was HS RHP Tyler Danish. This year they took a HS RHP with their 2nd pick in Spencer Adams. If a HS player is the highest rated player on the board in round 1, I think they will take the high schooler.

 

Exactly, you always take the best player available

[harfman77]

I think DJ Stewart lines up very well for the Sox. ACC player of the year as s soph, .472 OBP .557 SLG and walked more than he struck out (40:30). Could really shore up LF for the Sox and solidify the young core in the OF.

 

If not Stewart, I think one of the Vandy RHP's Bueler or Fulmer will be in play to try and sync with the rest of the core. The Sox will then do something similar in the second round getting a HS guy that slipped and backloading the system as well.

[Boopa1219]

I think DJ Stewart lines up well for the Sox. ACC player of the year, .472 OBP .557 SLG and walked more than he struck out (40:30). Could really shore up LF for the Sox and solidify the young core in the OF.

 

If not Stewart, I think one of the Vandy RHP's Bueler or Fulmer will be in play to try and sync with the rest of the core. The Sox will then do something similar in the second round getting a HS guy that slipped and backloading the system as well.

 

The farm system is still a work in progress and while there has been massive improvements, since they lack a lot of high end prospecs (With the exception of Rodon, amd maybe Anderson) and quality depth in the system.

 

I dont think or believe that DJ Stewart sloves that problem, because he is more of a finished product and lacks that high ceiling that the Sox desperately need in their system.

[LDF]

Disagree. I think Rick Hahn and his staff will identify the best player and take that player regardless of how

long it may take to get to the majors. They took Courtney Hawkins and Keon Barnum with back to back

picks 3 years ago. 2 years ago they took Tim Anderson out of JuCo and their 2nd rder was HS RHP Tyler Danish.

This year they took a HS RHP with their 2nd pick in Spencer Adams. If a HS player is the highest rated player

on the board in round 1, I think they will take the high schooler.

 

and I will accept what you are saying. I think that for all other rounds, the sox will pick for position and talent,

regardless of age of the prospect.

 

re 1 rounders, esp high ones, the sox will take fastest to the majors, esp now with the sox

being close.

[NorthSideSox72]

The farm system is still a work in progress and while there has been massive improvements, since they lack a lot of high end prospecs (With the exception of Rodon, amd maybe Anderson) and quality depth in the system.

 

I dont think or believe that DJ Stewart sloves that problem, because he is more of a finished product and lacks that high ceiling that the Sox desperately need in their system.

This philosophy is strange to me. I follow and write about the Sox farm system, and even for me, I do not care one iota how much talent depth is in the farm system at any given moment. What I care about is how effectively the organization can get MLB-ready talent staged up for a job. While those things obviously tend to align, you have to make sure your goal is about getting the talent there, not having a farm system that looks good. There is a subtle but important difference there.

 

If DJ Stewart is that much more polished, that isn't a bad thing, it is a good thing. It only becomes a bad thing if his ceiling is notably lower than others they could draft.

 

[oldsox]

This philosophy is strange to me. I follow and write about the Sox farm system, and even for me, I do not care one iota how much talent depth is in the farm system at any given moment. What I care about is how effectively the organization can get MLB-ready talent staged up for a job. While those things obviously tend to align, you have to make sure your goal is about getting the talent there, not having a farm system that looks good. There is a subtle but important difference there.

 

If DJ Stewart is that much more polished, that isn't a bad thing, it is a good thing. It only becomes a bad thing if his ceiling is notably lower than others they could draft.

Farm system depth is very important if your team is a perennial playoff team, just from the standpoint of trading chips. Plus, it's nice to see the minor league teams be successful.

[LDF]

Farm system depth is very important if your team is a perennial playoff team, just from the standpoint of trading chips.

Plus, it's nice to see the minor league teams be successful.

 

I respect what you are saying, however pls don't take this the wrong way.

 

the minor league team are not meant to be successful, but to provide talent to the

major league parent team. to receive players that are train, and ready to go to the

next step in their development.

 

[LDF]

The farm system is still a work in progress and while there has been massive improvements,

since they lack a lot of high end prospecs (With the exception of Rodon, amd maybe Anderson)

and quality depth in the system.

 

I dont think or believe that DJ Stewart sloves that problem, because he is more of a finished product and lacks that high ceiling that the Sox desperately need in their system.

 

how bout if the projected 1 rounder prospect who is a hs'er stalls out?

 

this is very much of the cliché chicken or the egg. don't get me wrong, I truly enjoy all the

writing that you do and look forward to them.

 

[NorthSideSox72]

Farm system depth is very important if your team is a perennial playoff team, just from the standpoint of trading chips. Plus, it's nice to see the minor league teams be successful.

On the latter, it's a nice side bonus, nothing more.

 

On the former, as I noted, if you are pumping the right talent into the organization, you will have plenty of talent in the minors for that purpose. But this still goes back to the same things I said earlier. Having high ceiling talent in A ball is one thing... have close to MLB-ready talent is another, both in value to your team AND in trade. That should be the goal - to create a line of talent knocking at the MLB club's door. If they can get there faster, all the better. And you can still trade them even in the majors, so again, having the talent in the minors for trade chips really isn't helpful in and of itself.

 

Now of course, if the high school player available has a higher ceiling and more likely value later, then you take that player. But saying that, all things equal, high school talent is better, just doesn't make sense to me.

 

[LDF]

On the latter, it's a nice side bonus, nothing more.

 

On the former, as I noted, if you are pumping the right talent into the organization, you will have plenty of talent in the minors for that purpose. But this still goes back to the same things I said earlier. Having high ceiling talent in A ball is one thing... have close to MLB-ready talent is another, both in value to your team AND in trade. That should be the goal - to create a line of talent knocking at the MLB club's door. If they can get there faster, all the better. And you can still trade them even in the majors, so again, having the talent in the minors for trade chips really isn't helpful in and of itself.

 

Now of course, if the high school player available has a higher ceiling and more likely value later, then you take that player. But saying that, all things equal, high school talent is better, just doesn't make sense to me.

 

for the most part I totally agree and you said it perfect. the example I wrote some months back is

the chi black hawk system, they have talent pounding on the door and they are staggered. now if

this was by design or sheer luck, who knows. that is what I would like to see, sox prospect pounding

on the major league door.

[Eminor3rd]

If DJ Stewart is that much more polished, that isn't a bad thing, it is a good thing. It only becomes a bad thing if his ceiling is notably lower than others they could draft.

 

The issue is that "polish" and "low ceiling" tend to go hand-in-hand. Pray, indulge the following generalization:

 

Player P and Player R have similar numbers, but they produce them in different ways. P has an advanced, polished approach to the game -- he works counts, he plays fundamental defense, etc. R, on the other hand, is extremely raw -- he's a free swinger who makes flashy plays but botches the routine from time to time. P succeeds through optimization, R succeeds through raw talent.

 

Though they've been successful so far, they both hit a wall at AA and begin to struggle. Both being similarly humble, they each turn to their coaches for answers. R, now forced to learn the skills that were never necessary before, finds success after figuring out how to be more selective at the plate and committing himself to a healthy amount of extra reps on defense. P, however, has little left to learn. His coaches desperately try to tweak his swing mechanics and send him to a sports psychologist to teach him to meditate before games, but the only result is frustration and streakiness. Because there's simply nothing left for P to improve, he has reached his peak; P has risen as far as his talent can take him.

 

Typically, "ceiling" is what happens if a player is able to put it all together; to become a master at all the skills required to play baseball. The trouble, of course, is that mastering those skills is far from automatic, hence high bust rates on intriguing athletes that are "risky." While the "safe" ones have little to figure out, they are also risky in the sense that it is incredibly difficult to predict how far their talent can take them. Since they have less to learn, they have a much smaller margin for error. Unless they are drafted as near ML ready, they necessarily have a lower ceiling.

 

I think that the only guys that are both "safe" and have similar ceilings as the "risky" guys are the really obvious, really rare generational talent guys. Those are ones that have the game figured out but have tons of room to mature physically.

Edited August 29, 2014 by Eminor3rd

[2nd_city_saint787]

Wasn't Rodon considered the most polished college pitcher in the draft last year?

 

I've read up on this DJ Stewart fellow and he sounds legit.

 

[Rowand44]

Wasn't Rodon considered the most polished college pitcher in the draft last year?

 

I've read up on this DJ Stewart fellow and he sounds legit.

People might have argued Nola going in, which gets us right back to the polished vs. Low ceiling discussion.

[ChiliIrishHammock24]

People might have argued Nola going in, which gets us right back to the polished vs. Low ceiling discussion.

 

Speaking of Nola, he pretty much dominated High-A ball in 31 IP this year, but then they bumped him up to AA and he hasn't done so hot. I wouldn't say he's done bad at all, but he's not dominating. Then again, it's only been 19 IP, but just someone who I figured we should keep an eye on since it seemed if Rodon and Aiken were off the board by the #3 pick, we were thinking Nola.

[witesoxfan]

The issue is that "polish" and "low ceiling" tend to go hand-in-hand. Pray, indulge the following generalization:

 

Player P and Player R have similar numbers, but they produce them in different ways. P has an advanced, polished approach to the game -- he works counts, he plays fundamental defense, etc. R, on the other hand, is extremely raw -- he's a free swinger who makes flashy plays but botches the routine from time to time. P succeeds through optimization, R succeeds through raw talent.

 

Though they've been successful so far, they both hit a wall at AA and begin to struggle. Both being similarly humble, they each turn to their coaches for answers. R, now forced to learn the skills that were never necessary before, finds success after figuring out how to be more selective at the plate and committing himself to a healthy amount of extra reps on defense. P, however, has little left to learn. His coaches desperately try to tweak his swing mechanics and send him to a sports psychologist to teach him to meditate before games, but the only result is frustration and streakiness. Because there's simply nothing left for P to improve, he has reached his peak; P has risen as far as his talent can take him.

 

Typically, "ceiling" is what happens if a player is able to put it all together; to become a master at all the skills required to play baseball. The trouble, of course, is that mastering those skills is far from automatic, hence high bust rates on intriguing athletes that are "risky." While the "safe" ones have little to figure out, they are also risky in the sense that it is incredibly difficult to predict how far their talent can take them. Since they have less to learn, they have a much smaller margin for error. Unless they are drafted as near ML ready, they necessarily have a lower ceiling.

 

I think that the only guys that are both "safe" and have similar ceilings as the "risky" guys are the really obvious, really rare generational talent guys. Those are ones that have the game figured out but have tons of room to mature physically.

 

Nice.

[NorthSideSox72]

The issue is that "polish" and "low ceiling" tend to go hand-in-hand. Pray, indulge the following generalization:

 

Player P and Player R have similar numbers, but they produce them in different ways. P has an advanced, polished approach to the game -- he works counts, he plays fundamental defense, etc. R, on the other hand, is extremely raw -- he's a free swinger who makes flashy plays but botches the routine from time to time. P succeeds through optimization, R succeeds through raw talent.

 

Though they've been successful so far, they both hit a wall at AA and begin to struggle. Both being similarly humble, they each turn to their coaches for answers. R, now forced to learn the skills that were never necessary before, finds success after figuring out how to be more selective at the plate and committing himself to a healthy amount of extra reps on defense. P, however, has little left to learn. His coaches desperately try to tweak his swing mechanics and send him to a sports psychologist to teach him to meditate before games, but the only result is frustration and streakiness. Because there's simply nothing left for P to improve, he has reached his peak; P has risen as far as his talent can take him.

 

Typically, "ceiling" is what happens if a player is able to put it all together; to become a master at all the skills required to play baseball. The trouble, of course, is that mastering those skills is far from automatic, hence high bust rates on intriguing athletes that are "risky." While the "safe" ones have little to figure out, they are also risky in the sense that it is incredibly difficult to predict how far their talent can take them. Since they have less to learn, they have a much smaller margin for error. Unless they are drafted as near ML ready, they necessarily have a lower ceiling.

 

I think that the only guys that are both "safe" and have similar ceilings as the "risky" guys are the really obvious, really rare generational talent guys. Those are ones that have the game figured out but have tons of room to mature physically.

Nice write-up, and all good points. But I do think it is important to seperate the two concepts - ceiling and polish. They are a matrix. One can be high or low on either scale. If you don't allow for that, you box yourself in.

 

[2nd_city_saint787]

Nice write-up, and all good points. But I do think it is important to seperate the two concepts - ceiling and polish. They are a matrix. One can be high or low on either scale. If you don't allow for that, you box yourself in.

 

Agreed, well put.

[southsider2k5]

Nice write-up, and all good points. But I do think it is important to seperate the two concepts - ceiling and polish. They are a matrix. One can be high or low on either scale. If you don't allow for that, you box yourself in.

 

High Ceiling + High polish = Jose Abreu

High Ceiling + Low polish = Dayan Viciedo

Low Ceiling + High Polish = Conor Gillaspie

Low Ceiling + Low Polish = Out of baseball

[witesoxfan]

High Ceiling + High polish = Jose Abreu

High Ceiling + Low polish = Dayan Viciedo

Low Ceiling + High Polish = Conor Gillaspie

Low Ceiling + Low Polish = Out of baseball

 

For the most part, this is a pretty good representation, but I think Gillaspie has better than a low ceiling. He's more of a mid-level ceiling where he can be a good regular but that's as high as it gets. It's hard to pinpoint an exact guy with a low ceiling but high polish because so often those guys end up as AAAA players, but it's also hard to say a guy is a polished hitter when you can see yourself that a guy can make improvements (but ultimately, maybe he can't).

 

I think that the ultimate low ceiling, high polish player is David Eckstein. As far as talent is concerned, that guy had virtually nothing going for him but he turned himself into a very good player in the long run.

[southsider2k5]

For the most part, this is a pretty good representation, but I think Gillaspie has better than a low ceiling. He's more of a mid-level ceiling where he can be a good regular but that's as high as it gets. It's hard to pinpoint an exact guy with a low ceiling but high polish because so often those guys end up as AAAA players, but it's also hard to say a guy is a polished hitter when you can see yourself that a guy can make improvements (but ultimately, maybe he can't).

 

I think that the ultimate low ceiling, high polish player is David Eckstein. As far as talent is concerned, that guy had virtually nothing going for him but he turned himself into a very good player in the long run.

 

Eduardo Escobar was actually the first LC/HP guy that came to mind, but I tried to keep it to the current team. A guy like Putnam or Buehrle also comes to mind.

[LDF]

People might have argued Nola going in, which gets us right back to the polished vs. Low ceiling discussion.

 

you got a point. I always thought it was Jeff Hoffman,