The Official 2024 Draft Thread

[Blarg]

54 minutes ago, BTH said:

But one bad prospect at #8, which should be a lay-up pick, will hurt us.

Historically there are very few #8 picks that end up with a better than average career. Most never make it. So trying to put some sort of urgent pressure on that singular pick is probably self defeating. 

[Angelsfan1984]

12 minutes ago, totdprods said:

It’ll be pretty much impossible for them not to have a crack at all Top 100 ranked guys considering they have the 8th, 45th, 76th and 83rd picks.

It took about 120 picks/four rounds for the Top 100 MLB.com ranked guys to really stop being selected, and even then there were still a few here and there the next few rounds. 

Also not really concerned about it not being a deep draft. The Angels have the worst farm. Anyone ranked in MLB’s top 150 or whatever is probably in our top 15 prospects, if not top 5. It’s pretty hard to screw this up when virtually anyone they select in the first 5 rounds and 11th will become one of our best prospects.

Yep, i'm hoping for 4x top 50 guys lol

[totdprods]

Last year, with the 8th pick KC took the 14th MLB.com ranked guy (Blake Mitchell), Detroit had the 45th pick and took the 91st ranked guy (Max Anderson), as well as the 76th pick (taking 51st ranked Paul Wilson), and the 83rd pick belonged to Boston who took 77th ranked Antonio Anderson.

The Tigers have a consensus Top 5 farm and Wilson and Anderson rank 15th and 16ty respectively in their Top 30.

So long as they don’t draft like four 1B-only guys, it’s gonna be pretty hard for even the Angels to botch this. They have nowhere to go but up and they could pull four names out of a Top 100 hat here and improve the farm significantly.

[totdprods]

And before anyone brings up that horrible 2010 Cowart, Bedrosian, Clark, etc. class…

The Angels are in a much different situation now than they were at that time. They were coming off a decade of success and badly needed to supply the MLB team with a pipeline of youth to keep that going, after a decade of having a strong farm. They were needing to maintain and failed hard. Their top prospects that year included Trout, Richards, Segura, Skaggs, Corbin, Grichuk, Will Smith, Bourjos, Chatwood, Trumbo, and Walden. It was a vastly different MLB team and farm with different expectations.

This time there’s nowhere to go but up and yeah, if they somehow replicate that 2010 draft than it’ll be a huge failure, but at that point it’ll be less on the draft class and more on Perry and Co., who thus far have shown at least a decent job of making the most with their first couple picks.

Edited May 29 by totdprods

[Angel Oracle]

2 hours ago, totdprods said:

Why?

I’m becoming more comfortable with a slightly under-slot first pick given that we have four picks in the top 100. We may need to spread that money around to get the best we can with those four picks rather than tightening it up after one.

Lomavita is in the top 15 draft predictions, but Janek is #25.

Pass on Janek.

Regarding Kurtz, his bat is elite, but what do they then do with Schanuel?  Trade him?

If they make Kurtz a DH, isn’t #8 overall too high to select a DH?

[totdprods]

11 minutes ago, Angel Oracle said:

Lomavita is in the top 15 draft predictions, but Janek is #25.

Pass on Janek.

Regarding Kurtz, his bat is elite, but what do they then do with Schanuel?  Trade him?

If they make Kurtz a DH, isn’t #8 overall too high to select a DH?

Selecting a 1B-only guy is about the only pick that I’d be pretty disappointed in, because it would be such a redundant player. I have wondered at times though if Schanuel is someone they potentially move on from quickly though in a trade. A smaller-market team with an already healthy offense would probably love having someone like Schanuel to add into the mix, or Perry pulling another Marsh for O’Hoppe-type deal. I don’t think it’s that far-fetched, and moving him up so quickly even might have been done to try and boost his value a bit by proving how close to ready he was. Seems like someone Tampa or Milwaukee would really like to have and maximize. 

[BTH]

1 hour ago, totdprods said:

Also not really concerned about it not being a deep draft. The Angels have the worst farm. Anyone ranked in MLB’s top 150 or whatever is probably in our top 15 prospects, if not top 5. It’s pretty hard to screw this up when virtually anyone they select in the first 5 rounds and 11th will become one of our best prospects.

That’s not a good thing though.

I want players who are actually good, not ones who just are gonna rank high in the system by default because of our poor system.

[BTH]

1 minute ago, totdprods said:

I have wondered at times though if Schanuel is someone they potentially move on from quickly though in a trade.

I could see that happening if/when they have a new GM, who won’t be as attached to guys from the previous regime.

[totdprods]

4 minutes ago, BTH said:

That’s not a good thing though.

I want players who are actually good, not ones who just are gonna rank high in the system by default because of our poor system.

A player ranked #10 is probably just as likely to be good as a player ranked #30 #50 or #70. It’s pretty close to a crapshoot across the first couple of rounds.

What is different though is slot value, and maximizing your allotment to sign away from college commits. That’s the best bet to get the most first/early-round talent you can get in a draft, and that’s substantially harder with each pick if you have less and less money to work with.

Edited May 29 by totdprods

[BTH]

1 hour ago, Blarg said:

Historically there are very few #8 picks that end up with a better than average career. Most never make it. So trying to put some sort of urgent pressure on that singular pick is probably self defeating. 

The likelihood of ending up with a better than average career at 45, 74, or 81 is likely substantially lower than at #8.

So get the BPA at 8 and go from there.

[James]

In '88 they took Abbot with the 8th pick. In '91 they took good ol' Pete Janicki with their 8th pick.

Sure hope this pick is much more like '88 than '91.

On a side note, Carson Fullmer was an 8th pick by the ChiSox and now sitting in our BP. 

Such a crap shoot.  

 

[totdprods]

45 minutes ago, BTH said:

The likelihood of ending up with a better than average career at 45, 74, or 81 is likely substantially lower than at #8.

So get the BPA at 8 and go from there.

Eh, at a quick glance it doesn’t look very different.

Too early to judge last 3-4 years, but if we look at 2000-2020 or so..

8th pick: 

• Great (1): Lindor (44 WAR)
• Good (4): Freeland (17 WAR), Leake (16), Maholm (12), Jung (3 WAR, probably gonna be good)
• Okay (4): Quantrill (8), Stubbs (8), Beckham (6), DeShields (5)
• Bad (6): Haseley, Carson Fulmer, Hunter Dozier, Appel, Moore, VanBenSchoten (all had just a WAR around replacement or negative)
• Didn’t reach MLB (5)

45th pick:

• Great (1): Story (30 WAR)
• Good (1): Lowrie (16 WAR)
• Okay (2): Gorzelanny (5), Jackson (3)
• Bad (6): Hjelle, Howard, Bowen, Belfiore, Price, Brignac
• Didn’t reach (10) 

Ky Bush was the 45th pick.

76th pick:

• Great (1): Giancarlo Stanton (44 WAR)
• Good (1): Brian Anderson (10)
• Okay (3): James McCann (8), Nick Hundley (8), Chad Bettis (3)
• Bad (6): Campbell, Clarke, Beck, Murphy, Hamilton, Majewski
• Didn’t reach (9)

83rd pick:

• Great (1?): Sean Murphy at 12, probably on pace for 20-30+
• Good (1): Adam Lind (12)
• Okay (1): Micah Owings (3)
• Bad (6): Lipcius, Seabold, Williams, Murphy, Olmos, Bates
• Didn’t reach (11)

A couple things are pretty consistent…

5% chance you get a really good, if not great player with each of those picks. This was true across all four of those slots (Murphy is a bit of a stretch, but if we drafted another Sean Murphy I don’t think anyone would complain).

Roughly 15% chance you get someone who has a decent but unremarkable career.

30% chance the pick is at best replacement level, this was true across all four slots.

50% chance that guy never plays in the bigs for the latter three (only about 33% for the #8 overall pick).

Aside from the #8 pick making the majors more frequently and producing a few more decent majors, there was really no difference in what you get picking #45, #76, or #83. It is worth noting though that both Stanton and Story were picks out of HS.

The Rockies picked Tyler Anderson ahead of Story at #20, and signed for probably about slot ($1.5m) while Story signed for $900k. Stanton was taken after the Marlins took Matt Dominguez with their first pick, both look like they signed in line with those around them.

Murphy was picked by the Athletics after they selected AJ Puk and Logan Shore, both of whom look they they were at or a bit above-slot.

I don’t think it really matters much across those four picks. Odds are about the same.

Edited May 29 by totdprods

[BTH]

6 hours ago, totdprods said:

Eh, at a quick glance it doesn’t look very different.

Too early to judge last 3-4 years, but if we look at 2000-2020 or so..

Based on what you posted, the number of good or great players by pick:

8: 5

45: 2

76: 2

83: 2

So you're more than twice as likely to get a good or great player at 8 than you are at 45, 76, or 83. That's why I'd prefer to just go BPA at #8. You want to hit on the other three picks, of course. But you need to hit on the #8 pick.

[totdprods]

31 minutes ago, BTH said:

Based on what you posted, the number of good or great players by pick:

8: 5

45: 2

76: 2

83: 2

So you're more than twice as likely to get a good or great player at 8 than you are at 45, 76, or 83. That's why I'd prefer to just go BPA at #8. You want to hit on the other three picks, of course. But you need to hit on the #8 pick.

Who and what exactly is BPA? Whomever MLB.com has ranked the highest still on the board? The Angels might have significantly different rankings internally.

Looking at the 2017 first round, picks 1-36, the player who has accumulated the most WAR is Tanner Houck with 8.4. He was ranked #20 and selected 24th. The five guys ranked 1-5 combined have only slightly more WAR combined, with 13.8. The combined slot value of the first five picks was $33.49M. All were paid overslot with the exception of the first pick, Royce Lewis, and those five still pulled in more money than those five picks were slotted for, with $34.67M. Houck was paid exact slot value when he was picked 24th. 

2018 is no different. The first-rounders with the most WAR so far are Logan Gilbert (8.5) picked 14th ranked 16th, Brady Singer (7.5) picked 18th ranked 2nd, Nico Hoerner leading the way (11.9) picked 24th ranked 52nd!, Shane McClanahan (8.7) picked 31st, ranked 14th. The top five guys have, once again, accumulated only a little more WAR combined (15.4) than the first-rounder leading the pack (Hoerner's 11.9). Hoerner was paid slot. The top five were paid $32.09M of the $34.09M those picks were valued at.

Point is, if James Tibbs (#16 rank) or Janek (#23 rank) or whoever else is currently ranked in the 20s on MLB.com is who they pick, there is no real guarantee that player is going to be better or worse than anyone ranked in the top 5. It's a total crapshoot. But what selecting those guys can do, and where the MLB.com ranking does tend to be more accurate, is cost associated with that player. If the Angels draft someone outside of MLB.com's ranked top 10, they likely will have more money to work with for picks #45, #76, and #83, and they won't really be sacrificing anything by not picking someone who is ranked in the top 10.

 

Edited May 30 by totdprods

[AngelStew43]

We just need to be very sure that we're not drafting the next Kaleb Cowart or Chevy Clarke.  BPA, please.  

Also, a lot of people seem to be down on Schanuel, I think it's a bit early for that.  He was obviously rushed, 

give him a full season's worth of at bats, and an offseason to train, and evaluate him at the end of the 2025 season.  

It doesn't help the organizations talent levels to trade him after 1 or 1 and a half seasons and have him become a good player on another team. 

[DCAngelsFan]

17 hours ago, totdprods said:

Eh, at a quick glance it doesn’t look very different.

Too early to judge last 3-4 years, but if we look at 2000-2020 or so..

...

I don’t think it really matters much across those four picks. Odds are about the same.

This is why I kinda wish you could trade picks - not just the Competitive Balance picks - being able to turn a #8 into a top 25 and top 100 pick would probably yield a better chance of hitting on at least one player of the 2, than just having that #8.   

Anyway, I keep seeing this across multiple sites - did I miss something?  Did the "Angles" sign a qualified free agent?  

[Ron Mexico]

32 minutes ago, DCAngelsFan said:

This is why I kinda wish you could trade picks - not just the Competitive Balance picks - being able to turn a #8 into a top 25 and top 100 pick would probably yield a better chance of hitting on at least one player of the 2, than just having that #8.   

Anyway, I keep seeing this across multiple sites - did I miss something?  Did the "Angles" sign a qualified free agent?  

Robert Stephenson would be my guess but that still doesn't sound right 

[Stradling]

The Angels didn’t sign a qualified free agent. 

[Lazorko Saves]

15 hours ago, totdprods said:

Who and what exactly is BPA? Whomever MLB.com has ranked the highest still on the board? The Angels might have significantly different rankings internally.

Yep.  In fact, you can definitely state this more strongly.  It's near certain the Angels scouts will have significant disagreement with the public rankings.  And it's true for every team.

This thread is going to drive me nuts right up through the draft.  I hate the mentality that goes on in every sports team message board that their team is somehow screwing up their pick by not going with whoever is next on BA, Callis, Mel Kiper, etc's list.  It's stupid.

[totdprods]

2 minutes ago, Lazorko Saves said:

Yep.  In fact, you can definitely state this more strongly.  It's near certain the Angels scouts will have significant disagreement with the public rankings.  And it's true for every team.

This thread is going to drive me nuts right up through the draft.  I hate the mentality that goes on in every sports team message board that their team is somehow screwing up their pick by not going with whoever is next on BA, Callis, Mel Kiper, etc's list.  It's stupid.

Same. This is the exact reason we wound up with Mike Trout, essentially. The Angels scouted him, knew him, and had him #1 (despite the Grichuk pick which was going to go either way), and virtually every club didn’t have them as their first guy, though he was on the radar.

They’re going to take who they want #8, regardless of who the experts have ranked that is still available. And it probably will not be one of those guys, based off prior draft history. 

[greginpsca]

On 5/30/2024 at 9:41 AM, Stradling said:

The Angels didn’t sign a qualified free agent. 

I don't think any of those teams listed did.

[totdprods]

11 minutes ago, greginpsca said:

I don't think any of those teams listed did.

Hader, Snell, Gray…I think “Angles” was meant to be Dodgers for Shohei

[Wisconsin27]

On 5/29/2024 at 3:48 PM, totdprods said:

Eh, at a quick glance it doesn’t look very different.

Too early to judge last 3-4 years, but if we look at 2000-2020 or so..

8th pick: 

• Great (1): Lindor (44 WAR)
• Good (4): Freeland (17 WAR), Leake (16), Maholm (12), Jung (3 WAR, probably gonna be good)
• Okay (4): Quantrill (8), Stubbs (8), Beckham (6), DeShields (5)
• Bad (6): Haseley, Carson Fulmer, Hunter Dozier, Appel, Moore, VanBenSchoten (all had just a WAR around replacement or negative)
• Didn’t reach MLB (5)

45th pick:

• Great (1): Story (30 WAR)
• Good (1): Lowrie (16 WAR)
• Okay (2): Gorzelanny (5), Jackson (3)
• Bad (6): Hjelle, Howard, Bowen, Belfiore, Price, Brignac
• Didn’t reach (10) 

Ky Bush was the 45th pick.

76th pick:

• Great (1): Giancarlo Stanton (44 WAR)
• Good (1): Brian Anderson (10)
• Okay (3): James McCann (8), Nick Hundley (8), Chad Bettis (3)
• Bad (6): Campbell, Clarke, Beck, Murphy, Hamilton, Majewski
• Didn’t reach (9)

83rd pick:

• Great (1?): Sean Murphy at 12, probably on pace for 20-30+
• Good (1): Adam Lind (12)
• Okay (1): Micah Owings (3)
• Bad (6): Lipcius, Seabold, Williams, Murphy, Olmos, Bates
• Didn’t reach (11)

A couple things are pretty consistent…

5% chance you get a really good, if not great player with each of those picks. This was true across all four of those slots (Murphy is a bit of a stretch, but if we drafted another Sean Murphy I don’t think anyone would complain).

Roughly 15% chance you get someone who has a decent but unremarkable career.

30% chance the pick is at best replacement level, this was true across all four slots.

50% chance that guy never plays in the bigs for the latter three (only about 33% for the #8 overall pick).

Aside from the #8 pick making the majors more frequently and producing a few more decent majors, there was really no difference in what you get picking #45, #76, or #83. It is worth noting though that both Stanton and Story were picks out of HS.

The Rockies picked Tyler Anderson ahead of Story at #20, and signed for probably about slot ($1.5m) while Story signed for $900k. Stanton was taken after the Marlins took Matt Dominguez with their first pick, both look like they signed in line with those around them.

Murphy was picked by the Athletics after they selected AJ Puk and Logan Shore, both of whom look they they were at or a bit above-slot.

I don’t think it really matters much across those four picks. Odds are about the same.

Thanks for putting this together.  Must have took you some time and it's good stuff.  Appreciate it.

[tdawg87]

On 5/29/2024 at 4:48 PM, totdprods said:

Eh, at a quick glance it doesn’t look very different.

Too early to judge last 3-4 years, but if we look at 2000-2020 or so..

8th pick: 

• Great (1): Lindor (44 WAR)
• Good (4): Freeland (17 WAR), Leake (16), Maholm (12), Jung (3 WAR, probably gonna be good)
• Okay (4): Quantrill (8), Stubbs (8), Beckham (6), DeShields (5)
• Bad (6): Haseley, Carson Fulmer, Hunter Dozier, Appel, Moore, VanBenSchoten (all had just a WAR around replacement or negative)
• Didn’t reach MLB (5)

45th pick:

• Great (1): Story (30 WAR)
• Good (1): Lowrie (16 WAR)
• Okay (2): Gorzelanny (5), Jackson (3)
• Bad (6): Hjelle, Howard, Bowen, Belfiore, Price, Brignac
• Didn’t reach (10) 

Ky Bush was the 45th pick.

76th pick:

• Great (1): Giancarlo Stanton (44 WAR)
• Good (1): Brian Anderson (10)
• Okay (3): James McCann (8), Nick Hundley (8), Chad Bettis (3)
• Bad (6): Campbell, Clarke, Beck, Murphy, Hamilton, Majewski
• Didn’t reach (9)

83rd pick:

• Great (1?): Sean Murphy at 12, probably on pace for 20-30+
• Good (1): Adam Lind (12)
• Okay (1): Micah Owings (3)
• Bad (6): Lipcius, Seabold, Williams, Murphy, Olmos, Bates
• Didn’t reach (11)

A couple things are pretty consistent…

5% chance you get a really good, if not great player with each of those picks. This was true across all four of those slots (Murphy is a bit of a stretch, but if we drafted another Sean Murphy I don’t think anyone would complain).

Roughly 15% chance you get someone who has a decent but unremarkable career.

30% chance the pick is at best replacement level, this was true across all four slots.

50% chance that guy never plays in the bigs for the latter three (only about 33% for the #8 overall pick).

Aside from the #8 pick making the majors more frequently and producing a few more decent majors, there was really no difference in what you get picking #45, #76, or #83. It is worth noting though that both Stanton and Story were picks out of HS.

The Rockies picked Tyler Anderson ahead of Story at #20, and signed for probably about slot ($1.5m) while Story signed for $900k. Stanton was taken after the Marlins took Matt Dominguez with their first pick, both look like they signed in line with those around them.

Murphy was picked by the Athletics after they selected AJ Puk and Logan Shore, both of whom look they they were at or a bit above-slot.

I don’t think it really matters much across those four picks. Odds are about the same.

You didn't have to go this hard. But you did. 

[samwum]

On 5/29/2024 at 1:48 PM, totdprods said:

Eh, at a quick glance it doesn’t look very different.

Too early to judge last 3-4 years, but if we look at 2000-2020 or so..

8th pick: 

• Great (1): Lindor (44 WAR)
• Good (4): Freeland (17 WAR), Leake (16), Maholm (12), Jung (3 WAR, probably gonna be good)
• Okay (4): Quantrill (8), Stubbs (8), Beckham (6), DeShields (5)
• Bad (6): Haseley, Carson Fulmer, Hunter Dozier, Appel, Moore, VanBenSchoten (all had just a WAR around replacement or negative)
• Didn’t reach MLB (5)

45th pick:

• Great (1): Story (30 WAR)
• Good (1): Lowrie (16 WAR)
• Okay (2): Gorzelanny (5), Jackson (3)
• Bad (6): Hjelle, Howard, Bowen, Belfiore, Price, Brignac
• Didn’t reach (10) 

Ky Bush was the 45th pick.

76th pick:

• Great (1): Giancarlo Stanton (44 WAR)
• Good (1): Brian Anderson (10)
• Okay (3): James McCann (8), Nick Hundley (8), Chad Bettis (3)
• Bad (6): Campbell, Clarke, Beck, Murphy, Hamilton, Majewski
• Didn’t reach (9)

83rd pick:

• Great (1?): Sean Murphy at 12, probably on pace for 20-30+
• Good (1): Adam Lind (12)
• Okay (1): Micah Owings (3)
• Bad (6): Lipcius, Seabold, Williams, Murphy, Olmos, Bates
• Didn’t reach (11)

A couple things are pretty consistent…

5% chance you get a really good, if not great player with each of those picks. This was true across all four of those slots (Murphy is a bit of a stretch, but if we drafted another Sean Murphy I don’t think anyone would complain).

Roughly 15% chance you get someone who has a decent but unremarkable career.

30% chance the pick is at best replacement level, this was true across all four slots.

50% chance that guy never plays in the bigs for the latter three (only about 33% for the #8 overall pick).

Aside from the #8 pick making the majors more frequently and producing a few more decent majors, there was really no difference in what you get picking #45, #76, or #83. It is worth noting though that both Stanton and Story were picks out of HS.

The Rockies picked Tyler Anderson ahead of Story at #20, and signed for probably about slot ($1.5m) while Story signed for $900k. Stanton was taken after the Marlins took Matt Dominguez with their first pick, both look like they signed in line with those around them.

Murphy was picked by the Athletics after they selected AJ Puk and Logan Shore, both of whom look they they were at or a bit above-slot.

I don’t think it really matters much across those four picks. Odds are about the same.

This is an awesome post. I think the judgement/categorization meter is maybe a little subjective but I generally agree with assessments and the research is incredible.

For me the thing that sticks out is that the "great" players are really incredible.

• Francisco Lindor -- Elite combo of bat, speed, and defense at premier defensive position SS. Got the superstar contract.
• Trevory Story -- Elite combo of bat, speed, and defense at premier defensive position SS. Injury riddled, but got the superstar contract.
• Giancarlo Stanton -- solidly in the running for most elite power slugger in the word. Injury riddled, but got the superstar contract. 
• Sean Murphy -- arguably the best power hitting catcher in the entire league. Got traded for top prospects and then signed to long term extension.

The actual results of drafting are scattered but picking #8 in itself is pretty sweet. Don't you have a better chance at an elite player like the above if only 7 other prospects are off the board?

If I have that pick I'm shooting for someone elite like those top guys. I wouldn't mind at all if they take a high school guy. I just pray that this strategy of rushing low ceiling players to the majors is over because we need a Lindor way more than we need a Schanuel and if you don't take the risk, then you'll always fall short.