LambeauLeap1250 WSSP


Test
  
Go to page Previous  1 ... 30, 31, 32, 33, 34  Next  [ 679 posts ]  New Topic   Add Reply

We're Number Five! We're Number Five! - The 2016 MLB Draft Thread

Author Message
Offline  Re: We're Number Five! We're Number Five! - The 2016 MLB Draft Thread
Posted: June 09, 2016, 1:54 PM Post
User avatar

Resident Hipster
Global Moderator
Posts: 12394
John Manuel's T-4 Hour Mock

Has Corey Ray to the Brewers - also notes that it is Moniak's floor.


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Offline  Re: We're Number Five! We're Number Five! - The 2016 MLB Draft Thread
Posted: June 09, 2016, 1:56 PM Post
User avatar
Posts: 1110
This is the time, right before the draft, just like in every sport...that we amplify all the warts in these guys. Puk will only be a closer. Ray won't have power. Groome is immature. I think half this stuff is leaked just to lower prices. Braun had a huge hole in his swing. Couldn't hit anything on the hands. It was going to be the plague of his career. The MLB draft, more than any other, is blackjack. Even if you know how to play, even if you make the right decision, the odds aren't with you. Puk is a non-blackjack 21. Even if the dealer draws out, the worst is a push (a closer). Ray is a 19 against a 5. More often than not it'll win. Pint/Groome in my Opinion are like doubling down on 10 against a face card. There are three pretty common outcomes. The dealer gives you an Ace (TOR fulfilled), a face (closer/back end starter)(most likely a push against the likely dealer 20, or you draw garbage and the dealer crushes you (minor league washout). The decision in this case, is the judgment of doubling a 10 into a 10. By blackjack theory, you are hoping for a push. There is risk/reward, it isn't a no-brainer. If the Brewers feel they can bust on this pick, then take one of the volatile arms. If they feel they have to give themselves the best chance at risk mitigation, then the young arms (this year at least) are a bad idea. If we're still multiple years away, and will have many more chances to take risks, then go for it. If DS think we're maybe 2 years away, probably better to take a higher floor. Not advocating a Jungmann, but at #5, there are high floor/high ceiling guys available.

Sorry, didn't have time to fully flush out this train of thought, and not sure it ever gets anywhere...


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Offline  Re: We're Number Five! We're Number Five! - The 2016 MLB Draft Thread
Posted: June 09, 2016, 1:57 PM Post

Tom Petty Apologist
Posts: 694
I dont like Ray simply because he reminds me a lot of former Brewers #1 draft pick, Chad Green. I don't know why but he just does, then I go look up Chad Green on wikipedia and holy smokes, he went to Louisville (although my memory was Kentucky). I think that's a sign.


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Offline  Re: We're Number Five! We're Number Five! - The 2016 MLB Draft Thread
Posted: June 09, 2016, 2:07 PM Post
User avatar
Posts: 7703
LouisEly said:
If all goes well, here is what I would like to see:

1 (#5): any of Groome, Puk, Pint, or Lowe
2 (#46): Ben Rortvedt, John Duplantier, Lucas Erceg (can Joe Rizzo move to catcher?)
2b (#75): Hunter Bishop, Jameson Fisher, Ben Bowden
3 (#82): Zack Brown, Jesus Luzardo, Matt Krook
4 (#111): Logan Ice, Keegan Akin, Brigham Hill

Found a new 3rd/4th round guy - Will Smith, C, Louisville.


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Offline  Re: We're Number Five! We're Number Five! - The 2016 MLB Draft Thread
Posted: June 09, 2016, 2:08 PM Post

Tom Petty Apologist
Posts: 694
And That said:
John Manuel's T-4 Hour Mock

Has Corey Ray to the Brewers - also notes that it is Moniak's floor.


That's tough to read when the next 6 picks are pitchers.


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Offline  Re: We're Number Five! We're Number Five! - The 2016 MLB Draft Thread
Posted: June 09, 2016, 2:08 PM Post
Posts: 525
And That said:
John Manuel's T-4 Hour Mock

Has Corey Ray to the Brewers - also notes that it is Moniak's floor.


Lux up to 13? I guess I can stop dreaming that he is on the board for round 2.


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Offline  Re: We're Number Five! We're Number Five! - The 2016 MLB Draft Thread
Posted: June 09, 2016, 2:09 PM Post
Posts: 3152
And That said:
John Manuel's T-4 Hour Mock

Has Corey Ray to the Brewers - also notes that it is Moniak's floor.


If they pass up Puk and Groome to pick Ray....


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Offline  Re: We're Number Five! We're Number Five! - The 2016 MLB Draft Thread
Posted: June 09, 2016, 2:10 PM Post
User avatar
Posts: 4146
Surhoff5 said:
I know I am in the minority on this board, but I would much prefer a hitter over a pitcher this year. I think it is more important that the Brewers don't miss than getting a potential front line pitcher. There is just too much volatility with all the choices this year. Based on their history, I also don't trust the Brewers minor league instructors to develop said pitcher correctly.

I do 100% agree with Plush though in that I don't want it to be an under slot signing. If they think Ray, Rutherford, or whomever is the best bat available, then that is who I want them to take.

I don't care much at all if a pitcher or position player is selected so long as that guy becomes a really good MLB player.

It's busts or guys who only become a mediocre MLB player who were picked top 5 that are killers for a franchise like the Brewers.


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Offline  Re: We're Number Five! We're Number Five! - The 2016 MLB Draft Thread
Posted: June 09, 2016, 2:29 PM Post
Posts: 16234
Alright so we seem to be drafting an OFer.


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Offline  Re: We're Number Five! We're Number Five! - The 2016 MLB Draft Thread
Posted: June 09, 2016, 2:32 PM Post
User avatar
Posts: 6239
Boomer5 said:
And That said:
John Manuel's T-4 Hour Mock

Has Corey Ray to the Brewers - also notes that it is Moniak's floor.


If they pass up Puk and Groome to pick Ray....


Image


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Offline  Re: We're Number Five! We're Number Five! - The 2016 MLB Draft Thread
Posted: June 09, 2016, 2:36 PM Post
User avatar
Global Moderator
Posts: 7982
Interesting read from Chris Mitchell at Fangraphs:

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/kyle-lew ... -prospect/

He was curious about a guy like Kyle Lewis coming from a small conference (think Rickie Weeks, who he talks about as a comparison).

He talks about how it is difficult to look at a guy like Lewis, but at the end, he says this:

Still, given the stakes associated with an early-round draft pick, teams should be thinking long and hard about Lewis’ strikeout woes, especially in light his competition level. Hitters who have trouble making contact against weak competition often don’t see their performances translate to the big leagues. The brief history of first-round college hitters from lower-tier conferences neatly highlights this phenomenon.

The competition level is college really can be quite diverse - and it's not something I really think about.


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Offline  Re: We're Number Five! We're Number Five! - The 2016 MLB Draft Thread
Posted: June 09, 2016, 2:43 PM Post
Posts: 4038
Still hoping for Pint. I apologize for nothing else to add to the thread, other than:

The Brewers have had a history in the last 10 years of developing hitters. They (generally) figure out ways to score enough runs. Looking at the current roster and Arcia/Phillips and others coming, that will likely continue.

The Brewers need pitching! They need a lot of pitching. Roll the dice on Pint or Groome please

The David Stearns era: Controllable Young Talent. Watch the Jedi work his magic!


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Offline  Re: We're Number Five! We're Number Five! - The 2016 MLB Draft Thread
Posted: June 09, 2016, 2:47 PM Post
User avatar
Posts: 7703
I'm curious what the difference is between Ray and say, Jungmann or Bradley? Is Ray a high-upside guy, or is he the position version of the high floor/moderate ceiling college pitcher that people say/said those two were/are?


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Offline  Re: We're Number Five! We're Number Five! - The 2016 MLB Draft Thread
Posted: June 09, 2016, 2:57 PM Post
Posts: 217
reillymcshane said:
Interesting read from Chris Mitchell at Fangraphs:

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/kyle-lew ... -prospect/

He was curious about a guy like Kyle Lewis coming from a small conference (think Rickie Weeks, who he talks about as a comparison).

He talks about how it is difficult to look at a guy like Lewis, but at the end, he says this:

Still, given the stakes associated with an early-round draft pick, teams should be thinking long and hard about Lewis’ strikeout woes, especially in light his competition level. Hitters who have trouble making contact against weak competition often don’t see their performances translate to the big leagues. The brief history of first-round college hitters from lower-tier conferences neatly highlights this phenomenon.

The competition level is college really can be quite diverse - and it's not something I really think about.


I'd be more worried if he struggled in the Cape Cod League but he didn't. In fact, he struck out less than Nick Senzel in the Cape last year.


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Offline  Re: We're Number Five! We're Number Five! - The 2016 MLB Draft Thread
Posted: June 09, 2016, 3:06 PM Post
User avatar
Global Moderator
Posts: 4770
I did not expect a Chad Green reference - I'm impressed.


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Offline  Re: We're Number Five! We're Number Five! - The 2016 MLB Draft Thread
Posted: June 09, 2016, 3:10 PM Post
User avatar

Resident Hipster
Global Moderator
Posts: 12394
splitterpfj said:
I did not expect a Chad Green reference - I'm impressed.


Agreed. JackNicholson1974 wins Brewerfan today.

Although the mention of Chad Green just gave me some wicked Antone Williamson flashbacks.


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Offline  Re: We're Number Five! We're Number Five! - The 2016 MLB Draft Thread
Posted: June 09, 2016, 3:11 PM Post
User avatar

Resident Hipster
Global Moderator
Posts: 12394
https://twitter.com/AdamMcCalvy/status/ ... 2461742080

Brewers expected to pick around about 6:27 CT.


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Offline  Re: We're Number Five! We're Number Five! - The 2016 MLB Draft Thread
Posted: June 09, 2016, 3:11 PM Post
User avatar
Posts: 189
Back to Rutherford rumor... https://twitter.com/FPiliereD1/status/7 ... 4421967872


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Offline  Re: We're Number Five! We're Number Five! - The 2016 MLB Draft Thread
Posted: June 09, 2016, 3:19 PM Post
User avatar
Global Moderator
Posts: 4770
I thought about calling Pilliere out on Twitter for that one - some, "new rumor" that is .... hey everybody, the Brewers are in on Blake Rutherford, who had a great workout for them!


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Offline  Re: We're Number Five! We're Number Five! - The 2016 MLB Draft Thread
Posted: June 09, 2016, 3:30 PM Post
Posts: 16234
splitterpfj said:
I thought about calling Pilliere out on Twitter for that one - some, "new rumor" that is .... hey everybody, the Brewers are in on Blake Rutherford, who had a great workout for them!


And the guy thatcould fall all the way out of the first round if we don't take him might be willing to work out a deal to be taken at #5. I am shocked.


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Go to page Previous  1 ... 30, 31, 32, 33, 34  Next  [ 679 posts ]  New Topic   Add Reply
Test
  


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search this forum (phpBB search):
Jump to:  
cron
Search entire board (Google search):
Google
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
Test