Day 2 coming up. Better get my dice. Ready to roll.

The Bo Bichette pick was incredible. Maybe it was not a fluke. Someone knows how to pick em.

With that in mind H Danner just may succeed as a catcher. Almost anyone drafted as a catcher by the Jays have injuries issues and does not make it. But the Jays have great success at drafting V good pitchers.

Sorry about throwing cold water on drafting catchers.

Delgado and Sprague were catchers. Just because we can't develop a catcher that sticks at the position doesn't me we should give up on them entirely in the draft/IFA.

Will be interested to see how much Sam Carlson signs for compared to Pearson - if it's close, then I would have preferred taking Carlson at 28, then hoping Pearson falls to #61 - but it appears that Pearson had a deal with the Jays.

From MLB on the Jays third round pick...some concerns here:

Adams was a solid catching prospect coming out of high school, a very flexible athletic backstop who is a black belt in karate. While some worry that he's lost some of that behind the plate, some success with his bat, coupled with the usual dearth of college catching, should help this University of San Diego backstop come June. A Cape Cod League All-Star, Adams has shown some ability at the plate and he's increased his power output in each of his three years as a starter at San Diego. Some of that has come because he's a good guess hitter and pulls balls out of the park, but some scouts feel he has become too spread out at the plate with his Kris Bryant-like stance. In the past, he has shown solid defensive skills and a solid arm, though reports out of the Cape and this spring about his defense have not been overwhelmingly positive. Adams is big and strong; the raw power is legitimate. The team that feels it can get him back to tapping into it with a better setup at the plate, not to mention helping him refine his defensive play, will take him off the board in the top three rounds.

From a BA article on May 11th:

“He has so many tools that the pro people are just dreaming on him,” Hill said. “He’s 6-foot-4, 225 pounds getting off the bus and looks like Adonis. Start there.

“Then there’s the arm strength and the power and the makeup. He’s got everything. When he walks through the gate, all eyes are on him.”

While professional observers note Adams for his athleticism and plus arm strength, they also see a need to polish his receiving and presentation behind the plate.

“The better he shows as a catcher, the more value he has,” said a longtime National League scout who has followed Adams in both high school and college. “With his frame, it may take him a little longer to become the catcher he would like to become. One thing he has going for him is that he’s athletic.”

The scout said Adams needs to relax more when he catches, that “he can be a little rigid at times.”

“He’s very intelligent, very smart behind the plate,” the scout said. “It’s just a matter of how he develops with the receiving part of it. That would be the one knock on him.”

I think Ken Huckaby is our roving catching coordinator. He should be able to develop these catching prospects.

4th round pick Kevin Smith:

Smith had spent his first two years at Maryland as a starter at shortstop when he headed to Cape Cod for the summer. It was in that elite wood-bat league that he jumped much more firmly onto the Draft radar with an outstanding performance that led to an All-Star selection and playoff MVP honors. Smith hasn't been able to maintain that kind of offensive consistency at Maryland this year, with some swing and miss tendencies keeping him from hitting for average. He has shown some aptitude for making adjustments and improving in that regard, something he'll have to do at the next level. He has sneaky power that shows up in games, but while he is capable of driving the ball to all fields, he gets too pull-happy. While he is a below-average runner, Smith's instincts and hands should allow him to stay at shortstop. His arm grades out as average, but he has a quick release and is always accurate. There's nothing flashy with Smith's game, but he makes all of the plays consistently. If the bat can improve, he has the chance to be an everyday shortstop at the next level, something a team taking him in the early rounds will be banking on.

And this from BA on Smith:

Coming out of high school, Smith was small and skinny. Scouts liked his glove actions and arm strength, but he needed to go to college to develop. Smith found instant success at Maryland, earning the starting shortstop job as a freshman and quickly developing a reputation for highlight-reel defensive plays. With the draft nearing, Smith's defense remains his defining characteristic. He has plus hands and body control and flashes plus arm strength, though some evaluators note that his arm has been inconsistent this spring. Offensively, Smith shows above-average bat speed and raw power. He batted .301 as a rising sophomore in the Cape Cod League last summer, giving evaluators hope that his pure batting had improved. Smith struggled early on this spring, casting further doubt on his ability to make contact and dropping him to the lower third of the Terrapins' order. His power remains ahead of his hitting ability. In a college shortstop class devoid of players likely to stick at the position, Smith should still be a high draft pick, in spite of his shaky offensive track record.

Both catchers drafted do not have extensive experience behind the plate. The upside is both are athletic and both have plus bats. If Huckaby can have dedicated time to coach both of these prospects I anticipate exponential defensive improvements rather quickly. A pro environment with a focus purely on catching & hitting seems like a great recipe for developing these two catching prospects.

Smith from Maryland sounds like more of a 2nd baseman than a SS. Hopefully, some more scouting reports on Smith will surface that have a higher upside

So far, there have been three early collegiate bat selections- all have good power for their position but contact issues. 

but while he is capable of driving the ball to all fields, he gets too pull-happy.

Just a hunch, but I believe Jays seem to be moving toward removing pull-happiness from hitters.

The Jays appear to be bringing in a lot of arms from the Dominican Summer League this summer for the two rookie teams (and also signed a ton for the DSL team this year), so I'm not surprised that they've been very heavy on the hitters.

The college parade continues with a college 2B:

Large was a bat-first second baseman for William and Mary, and that's what he projects to be at the next level. A left-handed hitter with below-average speed, Large performed well at the plate for three seasons. He doesn't project any plus tools, but a team will take a chance on his bat.

BA likes Large's speed better than MLB....

A switch-hitting college middle infielder with a track record of success, Large lived up to expectations this season, helping the Tribe to a solid 31-win regular season. Listed at 6-foot, 175-pounds, he is a solid athlete whose calling card is his bat. Some scouts give him above-average raw power, and he has a chance to get to it because of his feel for hitting. He’s comfortable working deep counts, isn’t afraid to draw a walk and can drive balls to both gaps. He’s an above-average runner in workouts, and while it doesn’t always play on the bases, it could allow him to play the outfield and become a utility option. He’s a switch-hitter with sneaky pop from the left side. Large’s range and hands are fringy and he should become an an average defender at second.

I can't say I am a big fan of all the college picks but I do like the up the middle approach. It's better than picking first basemen as was rumoured last week.

The college heavy approach was the MO of Shapiro's Indians teams prior to his departure, so I'm not surprised... but those last few drafts also produced very, very few big league contributors (or projected contributors).

Rany Jayazerli did a big study on WAR production by pick for college and HS arms and bats.  The college bats have consistently done well over the decades.  College arms used to do better, but in recent years, high school arms have done better.  It's a marginal thing- generalizations that either college or high school choices are better probably miss the point.  It depends mostly on the qualities of the player involved. 

Historically, college middle infielders have done the best of all on average.  Nonetheless, I'm not excited about college middle infielders with major contact issues.

And in case you were wondering, add Cullen Large to the list of players with deceptive names (Devon White, Bud Black, Cecil Fielder...)

Why do I imagine Nate Pearson as a high leverage reliever one day and owning Aaron Judge?  I guess "Court of Appeal" is not a catchy nickname.

Not surprised high school arms are starting to do better now that MLB teams are protecting them as much as possible. Some college coaches do, but a lot don't.

There's that.  The extra year that teams can control a player without exposing him to the Rule 5 draft (now 5 years instead of 4 for high-schoolers) allows teams to develop high school pitchers better than before. The improvement in TJ methods probably doesn't hurt either- a high school pitcher can have TJ a year or two after being drafted, recover and develop enough before the 5 years is up to make it to the 40 man. 

From Ba on Brock Lundquist, sixth round OF.

The Athletics drafted Lundquist in the 36th round out of high school, but he instead went to Long Beach State and became a three-year starter for the Dirtbags. Lundquist is physically well-put together and has raw power in his 6-foot, 210-pound frame, but has struggled to get to it consistently in games. He served as Beach's leadoff hitter rather than hitting in the middle of the order for much of the season, highlighting that inability. Lundquist has a good bat path and good bat speed, but his pitch recognition is below-average and he can get out on his front side. He is an average runner with an average arm and projects as a fringe-average to average defender in left field, with just enough arm to handle right.

Lundquist has also a pretty great  'stache. 

Stop me if you heard this before, but the Jays selected a college player in the seventh round, a pitcher this time.

Laws was closing the season with a flourish, with 14 strikeouts in his final start in the Conference USA tournament. He's a redshirt sophomore who attended East Carolina in fall 2014 but transferred after a coaching change. He's athletic enough to have been a star basketball player in high school, scoring more than 1,200 points. Statistically, he dominated in 2017, ranking 16th nationally in ERA (1.87) and in the top 25 with 1.21 walks per nine innings. He's similar to Mariners farmhand Max Povse as a rangy 6-foot-8 starter who pounds the strike zone, getting ground balls and swings and misses with an 88-92 mph fastball that can touch higher. His slider and changeup have made progress in 2017, and while neither grades as above-average presently, he keeps both pitches down.

Is it just me or does Cullen Large sound a lot like Ryan Scrimpf from a few years back.

Assuming these college guys will be underslot to pay for some prep kids past round 10.

Kacy Clemens, son of you know who, a senior 1B turning 23 in a month, was the Jays eighth round selection.

very interesting. I see he pitched some but I'm guessing they drafted him as a 1st Baseman?

These latest picks do look like bonus-savers, although as we've seen firsthand with Kendall Graveman, those types of picks can still produce real value.  Clemens is a senior, and Lundquist and Laws were picked much higher than the draft rankings had them rated. 

I like grabbing up-the-middle guys, and the top 5 picks as a whole really, but I do worry a little bit about the seeming aversion to HS players demonstrated last year and this.  With all the emphasis on the development / sports science side of the org, it's a bit surprising not to see more long-term picks.  Although they don't seem to be shy of picking players with contact issues - JB Woodman's 40.2% K percentage be damned.  40.2%.  That's nearly 9% worse than last years dreadful number. 

This is Steve Sanders first year at the helm of the draft, so it's interesting to see if any trends emerge.  He's coming from a great system in Boston, so I'm optimistic.  And it's nice to hear some positive reviews throughout the industry for day 1. 

Thanks Gerry and Marc (welcome back!) for the comments and continued updates. Couple thoughts:

1. It's almost like Steve Sanders just hung out on the Cape all summer and is now trying to justify it. "Boss, look at our ROI on those Chatham hotels!"

2. This draft and to a certain extent last year's echoes too much for my liking back to the Ricciardi years.

3. Boston in recent memory has drafted strongly, in part it would seem, because they valued tools over safety. I don't see many tools in this class so far. I have to think that this is the Shapiro-Atkins show more than the Sanders.

4. I miss AA drafts and it would seem so do Bauxites. Those AA drafts were great fodder for us and I recall multiple draft-related threads yielding 100-plus comments. Perhaps we weren't winning back then and thus devoted our attention to the future, but there was always a sense of palpable excitement in discussing our "toolsy" picks.

5. I still think Shapiro and Atkins have yet to adjust to the AL East. In my opinion, high-end tools win games in this division and in the playoffs. I don't know how you win when you're best attribute is not better than your opponent's best attribute, though that is a terrible simplification of a very complex game.

6. If what Marc mentioned about the promotion of Latin pitchers is true and the justification to pair them with drafted college hitters, Atkins and Shapiro should be harshly criticized. Drafting is not about filling out minor league rosters.

7. I take some joy in the fact that our Latin American commitment is rumoured to remain strong. We're reportedly linked to several of the consensus top July 2 free agents.

8. I'm always reticent to read about drafted catchers who lack "feel" or need to develop their receiving. That's an awfully difficult tool to develop. I've had very respected scouts say that to me and I think it holds true. Remember the dark years of J.P. Arencibia? With that being said, a high school kid is more likely to develop that ability than a college guy.

9. One would hope that there are a few "toolsy" guys in rounds 11+ that have been targeted based on our Rounds 3-10 crop.

Large has shown good on base skills and decent gap power with 20 doubles in 250PA.
He's not a huge overdraft.

Sam said everything I wanted to say and much better

Lundquist strike out rate has gone 12%, 18%, 21%, so they might think it's fixable.

AA had a ton of extra draft picks and was able to spend a good chunk of money on his picks.

It wasn't until his last draft he had a low pool amount. How great was that draft? Maese, maybe Espada and Pruitt. Who else?

Sucks were not drafting more D. J. Davis types.

can't say that any of these scouting reports sounds too exciting, that's for sure. I liked yesterday much better.

Days 1 and 3 are what will make or break this draft. Don't see overslot yet, like we had to for Bichette last year, so there should be upside HS kids tomorrow. Then it's a matter of signing them,

I'll say this about AA, his drafts were always interesting. He scammed extra picks by acquiring type A and B free agents that yielded compensation picks in free agency. He didn't sign first round picks which gave him multiple first rounders the following season. He punted picks on college seniors to free up bonus room for other big fish draft picks. He drafted the injured pitcher. He drafted a football player and said keep in touch. He used slot money to sign 28th round picks to big bonus deals. Did it always work out? Of course not! But it was interesting.

This draft is quite reminiscent of a JP draft, to me. Having said that, I can understand wanting players who are of a similar age to the current minor league prospect pool. Vancouver fans should be thrilled.

hypobole,

I appreciate the comments and feedback. I certainly see merit in your arguments and agree that D.J. Davis has not worked out as a "toolsy" draft pick. I find it interesting that you bring up that pick and by extension that 2012 draft. Having looked briefly at that draft (2012) and the picks that followed the D.J. Davis selection I note that the Jays, under AA, selected Marcus Stroman out of Duke later in the draft. I also note that the picks that followed D.J. Davis in the first round and compensation round that have, by most accounts, been a success are picks considered more "toolsy" picks than college picks. Please see players such as Joey Gallo, Corey Seager, Jose Berrios, and Lance McCullers. Compare those players to Michael Wacha, Stephen Piscotty, and Mitch Haniger.

I also note that the Cleveland Indians too had similar volume in draft picks under Mark Shapiro. In 2002 and 2003, the Indians had three first round picks in each draft. In 2005, the Indians had two first round picks. In 2006, the team had four second round picks. Of those selections, only Jeremy Guthrie's name comes to mind as someone with a strong Major League career. The team also had four first round picks in 2001.

I hope we can agree that under AA the Jays leveraged the rules as they related to the Draft to improve the talent in our system. Many of those players now feature prominently on a playoff baseball team (Sanchez and Stroman). If they aren't on the Jays, they were traded for players that do feature on our team (see Jeff Hoffman, Noah Syndergaard, Jake Marisnick, Joe Musgrove, Kendall Graveman, Daniel Norris, etc.).

Regardless of his receiving skills, the problem with Arencibia was that 484/85 K/BB ratio.

It's pretty hard to argue that AA's tools first approach led to drafting great position players.
We did get one pitcher who can dial it to 3 digits this year, so that's that.

I don't consider Stroman as a toolsy pick. He was a guy that dropped because of a perceived imperfection.
I don't know if there was a guy like that available. I might misremember,  but I believe there was a lot of buzz about Stroman before the draft. Now, Alford was a great pick that came as a surprise. Laws is a good example of a no-tool guy, unless you consider height a tool.

Last year's draft had a lot of toolsy guys, so I don't mind seeing more well-rounded guys this year, especially with catchers and shortstops.

sam, the D J Davis comment didn't extend to the rest of the draft, just to toolsy players without the hit tool.

Corey Seager: "In 2012, the Dodgers drafted 18th. Seager had shot up draft boards late that spring as a high school senior in North Carolina, as reports cited his simple swing, his power and how the game seemed to come easy to him. Sound familiar? Most scouts, however, believed Seager would have to move to third base. White usually preferred to prioritize pitching in the first round -- his previous eight top selections had all been pitchers -- but he believed Seager could stick at shortstop." from ESPN

So we draft a SS who some think may not stay at short, with a nice simple swing, a bit of pop and speed?

Shapiro's scouting directors in Cleveland were not very successful, other than the Archer kid. But how much did they spend? They were pretty frugal, but didn't have much choice due to their need for revenue sharing.

And all the players you mentioned at the end were pitchers, save one and Marisnick was picked during JPR's tenure. Most were great picks, true. Graveman was mostly luck as was Matt Boyd, though I'm sure player development played a part.

You have to sign everyone of your round 1-10 unprotected picks or lose the player and the budget value.

So teams punt many picks. last year round 7,8,9 and 10 were older pitchers. I believe that they signed for less than slot so that money could be spent on later round players that had higher signing requirements.

I believe that strategy is being used this year.

Day 3 has a few players not yet drafted that will require bigger $ to sign. I expect the jays to draft a few of them. They should be able to sign a few of them.

We will know more as the signing amounts are announced.

The AA comparison is off for many reasons, mainly the fact that the CBA was different during his first few drafts, and he (smartly) took advantage of that. The CBA has changed (twice) since then. It's apples and oranges.

Secondly, what position players did the Jays draft during AA's time that have amounted to anything? A very quick scan of the 2010-15 results, counting only 1) players who have reached the Majors, 2) current top prospects, and 3) first round picks, the Jays have gotten: Pompey (2010), DSJ (2011), Burns (2011), Pillar (2011), Davis (2012), Alford (2012), and Pentecost (2014). That's six drafts worth of position players. Pillar has panned out, Alford has potential, and Pompey might be something if he stays healthy, but overall that's not a whole bunch of talent there.

They have scored big on pitching, no question, but since this front office might be leaning more towards the position player side, it's a bit unfair to lump position players and pitchers together and assume that college/high school makes any discernible difference in this case. The Jays under AA focused a lot on high school pitching. They did well in that area, and not as well in other areas. Too early to really say what's going to happen with this regime.

I've said before, Shapiro/Atkins likely do not have much impact on drafts outside of maybe the first round. The scouting director and scouts do most of the leg work. Maybe Shapiro has told Sanders and co. to focus more on the college side, but aside from that possibility, it's too early to say which direction they will go tomorrow or moving forward.

Yesterday I was mentioning how the players were tight to where BA ranked them. The easiest way to see if the Jays are doing well or taking big risks.

Rounds 3-10...
Riley Adams: ranked #72, taken #99
Kevin Smith: ranked #79, taken #129
Cullen Large: ranked #285, taken #159
Brock Lundquist: ranked #391, taken #189
Colton Laws: ranked #376, taken #219
Kacy Clemens: unranked, taken #249 (yes, Roger Clemens son)
Zach Logue: ranked #258, taken #279
Justin Dillon: unranked, taken #309

So 2 picks who were ranked higher than the Jays got them. One who was ranked and taken about the right level (Zach Logue). Plus 5 others who were overdrafts, 2 who weren't even ranked although one certainly has good bloodlines.

I see this as a lot like early AA drafts where you save money after the early rounds by overdrafting guys who will sign for nothing thus saving cap room. A few high ranked guys are out there for round #11-40 - Tanner Burns #38; Brady McConnell #39; Tristan Beck #41; Garrett Mitchell #62; Jake Eder #69; Bryce Bonnin #73; Greg Jones #75; Chris McMahon #76; Daniel Cabrera #82; Blaine Knight #87; Tommy Mace #88; Kyle Hurt #94. 18 more from #100 to #150 and 19 more from #151 to #199. Lots of talent out there for rounds 11-40 hopefully the Jays grab some of it. Odds are many of these guys dropped due to 'signability' but the reality of dropping off the top 10 rounds will make a few who were just doing it as a negotiating tactic like Tellez did years ago cheaper to sign now. Those who weren't going to take $1 mil to sign before might start going 'oh crap' and come online for $500k. Guess we'll see.

stroman threw mid90s with command and had 4 refined pitches...on draft day.

only reason he wasn't an elite pick was because shortie shortpants was short.

"Riley Adams: ranked #72, taken #99
Kevin Smith: ranked #79, taken #129
Cullen Large: ranked #285, taken #159
Brock Lundquist: ranked #391, taken #189
Colton Laws: ranked #376, taken #219
Kacy Clemens: unranked, taken #249 (yes, Roger Clemens son)
Zach Logue: ranked #258, taken #279
Justin Dillon: unranked, taken #309"

The lower you go, the more meaningless rankings are. The difference between player #1 and player #20 is bigger than player #100 and player #500. If you look at average WAR by draft position, you see a very steep slope in value. Top picks often are stars, first rounders are hit and miss and after that, you're lucky if you get someone to the majors. (Some older research, but average WAR for pick 1-5 was 8.1 WAR in 2005. Average WAR for picks 31-40 was 1.8). Baseball is always unpredictable but after the first couple of rounds, the odds of any player making the majors are very slim.

By the 7th slot the pool  money is below 200K. Last year pick 11 was a HS pitcher who signed for 400K.

A toolsy pick is a HS kid who might not have faced high competition, but can  run fast, thrown hard or hit good BP.
There should be some of those today. Stroman was drafted in the 18th round in HS.

 

I don't take toolsy as anything to do with competition. To me it's a position player with at least 3, but usually 4 of hit, power, arm, speed, field.

Shi Davidi is reporting that the Jays picks in the back half of the top ten will sign for less than slot freeing up cash for other signings. Whether that is in the top three or in picks 11 and on, no-one is saying.

Thanks for the explanations about drafting strategy. There are many excellent picks available on day 3.

I see the money saving angle regarding our Rounds 5-10.

There were rumors that some players had prearranged deals in place. It should be interesting how that would play out.

My favorite picks are N Pearson and H Danner. I wonder if Pearson will sign for under slot. This could give more money for Danner.

I think the draft rankings of those lower picks on Day 2 simply indicate a bonus pool saving strategy. 

From Eric Longerhans Day 2 chat at Fangraphs, on Danner:  Psyched Toronto drafted him as a catcher. I’m very intrigued by his power. He needs a lot of work behind the plate, but he could get there now that he’s doing it full time.

When asked who had the highest ceiling left:  If either Riley Adams or KJ Harrison can catch and tap into their power, they’re beasts. Both have huge question marks about those particular skills, which is why they’re still on the board.

On SS Kevin Smith:  Fringe UT profile for me.

(sorry for the formatting issues.)