The GCL is usually a wasteland for hitters. This years Jays GCL team is an exception. Davis Schneider was mentioned in the last thread. He was born in 1999. Among the 1998 birthdays are Luis De Los Santos, Jose Theran, Otto Lopez, and Joseph Reyes. All are hitting well and unusually all are infielders. Dominic Abbadessa and DJ Neal, the outfielders, are 1997 birthdays and they are hitting well too. Its a promising sign.

I know the common theme around the front office is 2018, but really the franchise needs to focus on 2019-2020 when Bo and Vlady will potentially be ready. I think positionally there will be options by then to supplant the two young stars but there needs to be more pitching depth.

Shoeless Joe,

I think that's a good observation regarding lack of pitching depth. Anyone who has watched our minor leaguers in action will note that opposing teams usually have guys on the mound that throw harder and have generally better stuff, on average. Two comments regarding your post though:

1. I don't think it would be wise to "focus" on a year that Bichette and Guerrero Jr. may be ready. They're in A ball and a lot can happen. Guerrero has struggled, for example, since his promotion. The Twins attempted in part to "build around" two prospects in Miguel Sano and Byron Buxton. Buxton and Sano were decidedly better prospects than Guerrero and Bichette. I don't think that's worked out too well for them.

2. In my opinion, the best course of action is to simply inundate the system with high-end tools. The Astros and Red Sox are good examples of this policy. I don't see this front office particularly valuing that, or perhaps their modelling of amateur prospects highlights the greater risk factor generally attributed to these types of players. For example, Ryan Borucki is having a great year and is turning into a nice-looking pitching prospect that may feature near the back-half of a rotation at the ML level. I don't think he gets on this front office's draft board. I don't think guys like Conner Greene, Sean Reid-Foley, or Justin Maese get anywhere near the table conversation come draft time either. My point here is that good systems tend to find true ML talent across the draft, in part, by finding raw tools after the first round that likely bring greater risk than drafting average profiles such as J.B. Woodman. Granted, we've seen this explode spectacularly--please see Matt Smoral or Jacob Brentz.

Extremely well said Sam. Point 2 is bang on.

The Red Sox and Astros, of course, also rely on high-end data analysis.  Betts famously was tested for neuromuscular twitch just using a computer.  Luhnow is so well-respected for his analysis that his data was, ahem, much in demand.

I agree though that it doesn't make sense to project out Guerrero Jr. and Bichette to 2019, and leave it at that.  The Angels' experience with Trout is another data point to support the view that a continuous stream of talent coming into the big-league club is probably a better idea that simply having one or two high-end prospects. 

they're sitting pretty in 2019 if the FO proves capable of adding a couple pieces via FA or trade.

Controlled Players:

2B Travis 28, 2yrs ctrl
3B Bichette 21, 7yrs ctrl
1B Guerrero 20, 7yrs ctrl
DH Smoak 32, $6m x1yrs
C Martin 36, $20m x1yrs
SS Tulowitzki 34, $20m x1yrs
RF Alford 24, 5yrs ctrl
LF Pompey 26, 4yrs ctrl
CF Pillar 30, 2yrs ctrl

UT Morales 36, $11m x1yrs
OF Carrera 32, 1yrs ctrl
IF Goins 31, 2yrs ctrl
C Pentecost 26, 7yrs ctrl

UT Refsnyder 28, 2yrs ctrl
OF Gurriel 25, $3m x4yrs
IF Urena 23, 7yrs ctrl
C Jansen 24, 7yrs ctrl

UT Tellez 24, 7yrs ctrl
OF Smith 26, 6yrs ctrl
IF Warmoth 23, 7yrs ctrl
C McGuire 24, 7yrs ctrl





RH Stroman 28, 2yrs ctrl
RH Sanchez 26, 2yrs ctrl
RH Osuna 24, 2yrs ctrl
RH SRF 23, 7yrs ctrl
RH Zeuch 23, 7yrs ctrl
RH Maese 22, 7yrs ctrl
RH Pearson 22, 7yrs ctrl
RH Greene 24, 7yrs ctrl
LH Borucki 25, 7yrs ctrl

RH Tepera 31, 3yrs ctrl
RH Barnes 28, 5yrs ctrl
RH Biagini 27, 4yrs ctrl
RH Leone 27, 4yrs ctrl

"Buxton and Sano were decidedly better prospects than Guerrero and Bichette."

hmm. you sure?

Theres 2 way to acquire pitching depth, minor leagues contracts and prospects. The first ones can't be signed ahead of time and the second ones becomes extremely expensive as they get close to being major leagues ready. Many teams will improve their rosters until they have a competing starting lineup and will then trade for and sign established pitchers while their remaining prospects become their pitching depth. 

well, you piqued my interest. Let's see what (my preferred) stats would say about that.

CF Buxton 6'2"/190lbs, +speed and +fielding
2B Bichette 6'0"/200lbs, ok speed/fielding

Age 19, A+

Buxton: 253pa, 12.6b%/19.4k%, .404bip/.326avg, .147iso, 155wrc+, 16.2ld%, 22.2swst%
Bichette: 73pa, 6.8b%/12.3k%, .446bip/.400avg, .108iso, 184wrc+, 21.4ld%, 8.9swst%

Age 19, A

Buxton: 321pa, 13.7b%/17.4k%, .402bip/.341avg, .219iso, 176wrc+, 16.6ld%, 20.8swst%
Bichette: 317pa, 8.8b%/17.4k%, .452bip/.384avg, .239iso, 201wrc+, 31.4ld%, 10.0swst%

Age 18, GCL

Buxton: 102pa, 10.8b%/25.5k%, .259bip/.216avg, .250iso, 135wrc+, 13.3ld%, 14.7swst%
Bichette: 91pa, 6.6b%/18.7k%, .484bip/.427avg, .305iso, 238wrc+, 27.3ld%, 24.5swst%


Now Buxton did have that whole 5-tool thing going for him, and walked a fair bit to boot, but Bichette has a better line and that uncanny linedrive and no swinging strikes ability. Funny enough with the babips there we may have stumbled on a Bichette comparable here after all.

Well, let's see.  Buxton vs. Bichette at age 19.  Bichette is the better pure hitter but Buxton is a much better fielder and baserunner.  Most people would give Buxton the edge. Sano vs. Guerrero Jr.- same type of player  but Guerrero Jr. had much better plate control at a younger age.  Most people would give Guerrero Jr. the edge. 

Bichette is so unusual that it is really hard to fairly rate him.  I think that you just have to let time pass and see how he does.  I think that it is well within the realm of possibility that he turns out to be a great bat-first player, but we'll have to see if the plate control maintains at higher levels and whether he adds power, as you might expect. 

And then we have Sano and Vladdy, two power hitting 3B prospects who probably won't last at 3B longterm.

This one isn't as clean a comp because Sano was a year or two ahead of Vladdy each step of the way.

Rk+

Sano (18): 294pa, 7.8b%/26.2k%, .339bip/.292avg, .345iso, 153wrc+, 18.9ld%, 36.0swst%
Vlad (17): 276pa, 12.0b%/12.7k%, .283bip/.271avg, .178iso, 122wrc+, 19.7ld%, 16.3swst%

A

Sano (19): 553pa, 14.5b%/26.0k%, .307bip/.258avg, .263iso, 146wrc+, 14.2ld%, 29.4swst%
Vlad (18): 318pa, 12.6b%/10.7k%, .336bip/.316avg, .164iso, 151wrc+, 24.0ld%, 9.2swst%

A+

Sano (20): 243pa, 11.9b%/25.1k%, .397bip/.330avg, .325iso, 203wrc+, 13.9ld%, 21.9swst%
Vlad (18): 61pa, 13.1b%/18.0k%, .293bip/.235avg, .000iso, 79wrc+, 22.0ld%, 8.1swst%


Sano was always the monster power prospect, but with the swing and miss issues to match. Vlad of course has those crazy good bb/k rates, with even fewer swinging misses than Bo, and has light tower power himself. All while a year or two younger.

Gotta go with Vladdy in this comp.

I think the Twins comparison with Buxton and Sano is fairly valid point. Buxton was as can't miss as they come until he hit the majors. Perhaps you can't bank on Bichette/Vladdy but this is the best pair of prospects we've had coming up together in decades.

I don't personally like the change in draft strategy either, but I think there is more to it than that to suggest why the pitching depth has weakened. The IFA classes or 2013 and 2014 haven't yielded much and a lot of the guys from the previous regimes haven't taken steps forward this year outside of Borucki and a recent surge from Harris.

I wouldn't ever want to strategically rely too much on a small number of prospects. Even really really good ones. The wash out rate is too high. I think that is especially true with Bichette. My gut tells me that the distribution curve on his outcomes is shaped differently (both ways) than some other, less unique, prospects.

I don't think that's quite true, aside from Borucki & Harris - Guerrero,Olivares,Pentecost,Jansen,Romano,Alford - all from the previous regime whom I think have taken a step forward, plus I'm sure I'm missing others.

Sorry Shoeless Joe, You were posting about pitching prospects - in too much of a hurry.

A 'safe' college-heavy draft certainly brings back troublesome memories of JPR, but this current group is looking good so far, and the draft was well-regarded around the industry.  Time will tell, and a bunch of these guys need promotions soon.  The only top ten pick who's struggling is Hagen Danner, the only HS kid in the bunch.  In fact, Davis Schnieder is the only HS pick playing well from the entire draft. 

Hadn't noticed just how many later picks went to college relievers, or guys that are currently relieving.  I wonder if that's a strategy?  I've always liked using late picks for Danny Barnes types myself. 

It may be fun to check out the gaudy stats, but I don't see a whole lot of reason to let a college player like Ryan Noda continue to slug over .700 in Bluefield.  Move these guys up!

You don't want to plan around Guerrero and Bichette's ETA as things like struggling, injuries, etc, can factor into their careers. A more logical approach is just add talent wherever you can and keep stockpiling it. Some will bust, some will exceed expectations, and some will hopefully become stars. Quality at the top of a farm system is critical, but the depth around them is important as well. The Jays are getting there. They finally have top prospects in the front of their system, and for once the system seems to be leaning towards position players, which is a good thing, IMO.

As far as this regime's drafting, too early to tell. Atkins mentioned in the winter that the entire FO really liked Borucki, and now he's turning into a legit prospect. I don't think it's fair to say they would have avoided someone like him in the draft. It's hard to get a read on what they will do unless we have a larger sample of drafts.

the twins' strategy also involves being in what is (and most likely always will) the easiest/cheapest one to win in baseball.

which is why the Twins are always terrible and not interesting? In other words, what in the world is good about the Twins?

The idea of a safe versus upside draft is mostly a myth. If any player has real upside they will get taken very early. After that, it's mostly a crap-shoot. The difference between the 5th pick and 25th pick (probably even the 15th) is bigger than the difference between the 50th pick and 500th pick in terms of talent and career WAR. Aside from financial considerations, teams are just trying to get the best player. No front office thinks "I will take a safe backup infielder instead of a guy who can be a superstar but it's a long-shot". The Jays took Bichette who was risky, they took Pearson who was risky , signing a 16 YO Pardinho was risky, etc...

Here's a story on the C's 2-1 win over Tri-City Friday that includes a video snippet and roster notes.

The press notes and the team website say Nate Pearson will start Saturday.

Another gem from Ryan Borucki - 7 innings, 1 run on 3 hits, 7 K's.

Glevin, nobody here is disputing the Pearson and Bichette picks. Both were relatively risky picks, but with significant upside. Pearson because he was coming out of JuCo and has yet to develop much in the way of secondary stuff, but reportedly had the best fastball in the draft. Bichette because he was coming out of high school and though showed funky actions had innate hand-eye skills.

The dispute, as I I understand it, is that picks that would have either been "strategically" punted for later round spending are no more and the drafting of predominately high school (though it could be college players) who have yet to fill out or show that glimpse of stardom are no longer selected. Think guys like Aaron Sanchez or Noah Syndergaard.

I would encourage you to go watch SEC game and then pop down to the local high school or to the scouting combine that they (used to) have down at Connorvale run by Walt Burrows. Those high school kids will be extremely raw, may not have seen a weight room in their lives, and may not have had much proper coaching. Joey Votto at 18 was tall, had great bat speed, and an incredible work ethic. How many times do you think he saw 90 mph? I can tell you first hand, it wasn't a lot. If you're a scout and you're watching a guy hit dingers off a kid throwing 80 mph and then tomorrow you're watching another kid in college hit bombs off a guy throwing 90 mph, does that not factor into your analysis? The point being is, as much as you're evaluating the player's raw tools, they're undoubtedly coloured by external factors and the fact that one kid may be 17 and the other 22.

I prefer the greater risk (that usually attaches) to a Rowdy Tellez than someone like the recently drafted Kevin Smith. I'll note that that's likely an unfair characterization--perhaps it's more apt (to account for the attached bonus demands) to say I prefer the Rowdy Tellez selection to the combined Kevin Smith, Cullen Large, and Colton Laws.

I don't think it's a hard and fast rule, but the modelling that is done around these players should account for these "raw" tools. I suspect that their modelling likely is different than the previous regime.

I don't follow any amateur baseball but I do go to a lot of Canadians games which are filled mostly with very recent draftees. What follows is similar to Sam's point. I look at Vancouver players and ask myself what's the path for them to the major leagues. In general, that path involves a strong tool/clear strength. For pitchers, I ask myself how will they get major league hitters out and for position players I ask how would they add value to a major league roster? A couple of examples. Look at two current Canadians- Pruitt and Large. I am very down on Pruitt because I don't think he can hit. But I would draft him every time over someone like Large. Pruitt has plus speed and is a good defender. His path to the majors is clear. If he can hit even a little he has a chance. Large is a solid contributor to the Canadians but he doesn't do anything well. He's just ok at everything. I can't visualize a path to the majors for him. Two other examples. Borucki and Maese both were in Vancouver. Neither throw 95. Both had (when in Vancouver) one and only one clear strength (Borucki's CH and Maese's sinker). But you could visualize a way for them to get major league hitters out with that one strength. I'm in favour of drafting a guy like Borucki with one plus pitch over Jon Harris or Deck McGuire with 3 or 4 meh pitches. I do appreciate that things are never binary in the simplistic examples that I have set out.

nice posts guys.  I too would prefer one Rowdy Tellez to a trio like Smith, Large and Laws.  The punting strategy makes tons of sense to me.  Tellez' draft year was 2013, when we failed to sign our first rounder Phil Bickford, but we also generated extra money by picking guys like Graveman and Girodo 8th and 9th and signing both for $5,000.  Matt Boyd got $75,000 as a 6th rounder, and even Conner Greene went under slot with 100K as the 7th pick.  For a quartet of well under-slot guys, there is some real value there.  Not sure if we can attribute that to luck more than scouting, but it's clear that hitting on longshots, along with the well overslot signing of Tellez and picking HS talents like Danny Jansen, were the choices that made the 2013 draft so successful. 

I'm surprised there isn't more detailed public research on WAR per draft round.  This is an interesting study on the bWAR of 1st round picks in different slots:

http://www.fangraphs.com/community/success-rate-of-mlb-first-round-draft-picks-by-slot/

12.8 average bWAR for slots 1-5 as a group, 9.5 for slots 6-10, 8.7 for 11-15, 4.9 for 16-20,  6.5 for 21-25 and 4.5 for the remainder of the first round.  Obviously a big drop after the top 15 picks, but the numbers become less clear after that. 

Here's a study in terms of the number of players who make the bigs, and who stay in the bigs for 3+ years, by draft round:

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1219356-examining-the-percentage-of-mlb-draft-picks-that-reach-the-major-leagues

1st rounders studied had a 66% chance of making the bigs, 49% of 2nd rounders, 32% from rounds 3-5, 20% for rounds 6-10. 11% of rounds 11-20, and 7% after that. 

It's a field that needs more work, but to me it's pretty clear that banking on the upside of a HS kid like Tellez makes sense over the safer floor of college kids like Smith, Cullen and Large.  Safe picks do make some sense in terms of mitigating risk when looking at a draft class as a whole, but as much as the 2017 draftees are performing well thus far, I would have preferred a few more rolls of the dice.  Only HS 1B PK Morris, 14th round, got more than 200K after Large was picked in the 5th round

I'd be interested in seeing more work on breakdowns by position.  I've long thought that college relievers offer more value than assumed later in the draft given their volatility, and that positional scarcity is increasingly important.  I like that we have generally drafted a bunch of up the middle guys, which makes 2B Large my least favourite of the trio Sam mentioned, and I think Nigel put that well with his 'path to the majors' comment. 

Ultimately, I feel like it may be hard to be definitive in conclusions, it's pretty obvious that some teams are more successful in drafting based on their overall strategy.  The advantage may be small and unclear, but it's enough to dismiss the 'crapshoot' theory of the draft. 

Prospects are ranked by several organizations before and after the draft.
What complicates things before the draft are players who played at levels that were less competitive than others.
So, I don't think there's a huge difference in how various people value tools.
The difference is more in the way people assess the hit tool or the quality of pitches outside a known environment.
Things like age, body types, batting stance, pitching delivery and bloodlines are used to extrapolate results.
I believe the magic 8 ball is also used.

I see Harris got bombed today. I am curious about his recent run of success and the comments about changes in mechanics. I saw him a couple of times in Vancouver and let's just say I'm skeptical. I honestly think a good plan for 2018 might be to try him in the pen. He throws 91-92. If he could add a tick or two and just rely on his best secondary (I think that's his curve) I think they might be able to salvage something there.

i'm still firmly in the Harris Is Not A Prospect camp.

Harris-->Deck McGuire v2.0?
I was underwhelmed with the pick at the time. I really haven't seen anything since then to change my opinion.

Any update on Zeuch?

The guy who picked up the win against the Jays yesterday didn't look like a prospect either.
Harris is 23 and should be able to add 1-2 mph with the right conditioning.
That might be enough to make it to the majors eventually.

And now the Rock enters Cooperstown.

Zeuch is throwing in Florida and is close to a return.

"I prefer the greater risk (that usually attaches) to a Rowdy Tellez than someone like the recently drafted Kevin Smith. I'll note that that's likely an unfair characterization--perhaps it's more apt (to account for the attached bonus demands) to say I prefer the Rowdy Tellez selection to the combined Kevin Smith, Cullen Large, and Colton Laws."

Tellez got more money than any other Jays pick. The reason he didn't go earlier is that other teams allocated their money differently (The Jays didn't sign their 1st round pick.) Kevin Smith got less than half the money Tellez got. Tellez was the equivalent of a 2nd round pick. Was Tellez a high upside pick for that value? Not really. He has a pretty low ceiling because of defensive deficiencies. The Jays drafted a fair bit like this which made it look like they were getting big hits with later picks but really was just allocating money differently. Matt Dean got 2nd round money in the 13th round, Borucki got 4th round money in the 15th round, the same year as Tellez, the Jays second highest paid player was Brentz in the 11th round. Dickie Joe Thon was paid like a 1st rounder in the 5th, etc...Most teams don't do that much.

I also think there is a massive overrating of the previous regime's draft success. AA had an amazing draft strategy to accumulate picks (Best thing he did as GM) but the drafting itself was pedestrian. From 2010 through 2012, the Jays had 21 picks in the top-100 in the draft. The Jays had 30 top-100 picks in total under AA. They had 16 top-50 picks. There were definitely hits but there were also tons of misses.

Why do the Astros have a great young team and a top system? Because they had a ton of high picks and hit on a lot of them. Bregman, Tucker, Fisher, McCullers, Correa, Springer, and Whitley were 1st or competitive round picks in the past few years. They have also signed Martes and Gurriel internationally. They aren't building a system taking better 9th round players than other teams and that's the cusp of this issue. The idea that some teams do better because they take higher upside picks later in the draft is just false. Every team spends a lot of money and time evaluating prospects and some might prefer raw players over more polished ones but any player that anyone thinks has real upside, raw or not, will get paid.

Interesting story on Sportsnet site about Chris Rowley. I didn't realize that he was undrafted, but thought he was a draft pick that had to fulfill his military obligation first. It doesn't sound like he will be up with the big club this year, mainly because he just needs more playing time to make up for the years he's missed.

Why do the Astros have a great young team and a top system? Because they had a ton of high picks and hit on a lot of them. Bregman, Tucker, Fisher, McCullers, Correa, Springer, and Whitley were 1st or competitive round picks in the past few years. They have also signed Martes and Gurriel internationally. They aren't building a system taking better 9th round players than other teams and that's the cusp of this issue. The idea that some teams do better because they take higher upside picks later in the draft is just false. Every team spends a lot of money and time evaluating prospects and some might prefer raw players over more polished ones but any player that anyone thinks has real upside, raw or not, will get paid.

There's 2 top 2 picks in your list (Correa 1 (14.9), Bregman 2). McCullers is the 3rd player of that bunch (with Springer 15.3) to have 5+ WAR total (BR) since 2010. Bregman should top 4 by the end of the season.
Astros:2010-17 I counted 15 1st or supplemental picks.
top3 4 Correa, Appel, Aiken, Bregman (3 #1, 1#2)
top 5 5 (Tucker)
top 10 6
2010 3.9 2011 15.3 2012 20.3 2013 0 (Appel) 2014 0.2 2015 3.8 (Bregman) 2016 0 2017 0

Jays 2010-17: 19 1st or supplemental
top 3 0
top 5 0
top 10 2 - 1 not signed
2010 16.7  2011 0  2012 9.5  2013 0  2014 -0.4  2015 0 2016 0 2017 0

This single comparison illustrates your point re top picks, but good to great players taken later either were missed or dismissed by many teams,were tough signs, or something changed dramatically (easier with pitchers) to change their talent level. Pretty much all you can do is increase the number of reliable scouts you have to catch guys more often (and see changes in ability) or just see more guys (what AA tried to do). I'm still not convinced there isn't something wrong with the Jays minors position players development team, though.

I didn't turn on the bold... I don't know what's happening.