Series Thread: Rangers host the Royals May 30 - June 2

[saddles]

We all want the best choice but since there is no
guarantees how players turn out , ya have to take chances. Example: What is the
difference in #1 and #2?
When it's all said and done, #7 may be better than 1 or 2.

#7 being better than #1 or #2 is such a rarity that you shouldn't ever expect it. Now, #7 and # 10 flip-flopping wouldn't be too rare at all.

 

[saddles]

My ideal situation is to draft a guy who will play in Spolane the rest of the year and then split time at both A levels next year, and then be ready to start 2021 in Frisco. I would like him to be ready to start in Arlington to open 2022.

 

[saddles]

 

[DT LUNA]

#7 being better than #1 or #2 is such a rarity that you shouldn't ever expect it. Now, #7 and # 10 flip-flopping wouldn't be too rare at all.

You missed the point. David Clyde was not all he was cracked up to be. Charlie Waters and Cliff Harris were both all pro walk ons. Point I was making many players never live up to their billing. Yu Darvish didn't imo. #7
was an example as stated but could have been a 3 4 or 5.

 

[saddles]

 

[saddles]

You missed the point. David Clyde was not all he was cracked up to be. Charlie Waters and Cliff Harris were both all pro walk ons. Point I was making many players never live up to their billing. Yu Darvish didn't imo. #7
was an example as stated but could have been a 3 4 or 5.

I disagree with you about Clyde. He was ruined in the development process, or complete lack thereof. His abilities was on display in his debut and during that season. He should have not sniffed the big leagues before 2 or 3 years after his debut.

Darvish lived up to his billing in my estimation. Before being injured and before the Rangers limited his arsenal, he was one of the better pitchers in the league.

Waters was drafted in the 3rd round. You may be thinking of Drew Pearson.

 

[jta4437]

#7 being better than #1 or #2 is such a rarity that you shouldn't ever expect it. Now, #7 and # 10 flip-flopping wouldn't be too rare at all.

It actually happens quite frequently...

 

[saddles]

You missed the point. David Clyde was not all he was cracked up to be. Charlie Waters and Cliff Harris were both all pro walk ons. Point I was making many players never live up to their billing. Yu Darvish didn't imo. #7
was an example as stated but could have been a 3 4 or 5.

As far as taking chances goes, there may be a time to do that, but I don't think a pick in the top one third of the first round is the place for it.

 

[jta4437]

#7 being better than #1 or #2 is such a rarity that you shouldn't ever expect it. Now, #7 and # 10 flip-flopping wouldn't be too rare at all.

Since 2000, its arguably happened 14 times that someone taken #7 or later in the first round has been better than one of the top 2 picks

Prime example was 2006 when Luke Hochevar was taken #1 (Greg Reynolds was #2) and Clayton Kershaw was taken #7 (to really drive home the point) but also Lincecum was #10, Max Scherzer was #11, Ian Kennedy #21, etc...

 

[saddles]

Since 2000, its arguably happened 14 times that someone taken #7 or later in the first round has been better than one of the top 2 picks

Prime example was 2006 when Luke Hochevar was taken #1 (Greg Reynolds was #2) and Clayton Kershaw was taken #7 (to really drive home the point) but also Lincecum was #10, Max Scherzer was #11, Ian Kennedy #21, etc...

Where they were taken and how they are ranked are two different things though. Signability and other things come into play to make those lists different. Then there is flat out poor decisions that make those lists different.

If you make a consensus list of the top 30 guys available in the draft a lot of years, and compare that to the actual draft order you are going to find a lot of differences.

 

[saddles]

Also, the Rangers have never shown the ability to find a Lincecum, Schrezer, or Kershaw no matter where they draft. So even if some teams could pull that off on a semi-regular basis, I have no faith that our decision makers could.

 

[jta4437]

Where they were taken and how they are ranked are two different things though. Signability and other things come into play to make those lists different. Then there is flat out poor decisions that make those lists different.

If you make a consensus list of the top 30 guys available in the draft a lot of years, and compare that to the actual draft order you are going to find a lot of differences.

Rankings are by no means unanimous, This guys 1-10 won't be the same as that guys 1-10, the draft is a crap shoot, as I said before... No reason to get down in the dumps before the pick is even made

Also, the Rangers have never shown the ability to find a Lincecum, Schrezer, or Kershaw no matter where they draft. So even if some teams could pull that off on a semi-regular basis, I have no faith that our decision makers could.

Well now you're just changing the subject

 

[saddles]

Rankings are by no means unanimous, This guys 1-10 won't be the same as that guys 1-10, the draft is a crap shoot, as I said before... No reason to get down in the dumps before the pick is even made



Well now you're just changing the subject

No one is down in the dumps.

No one said the rankings were unanimous. That is why I used the term "consensus."

You brought up those players. I simply added to what we were talking about. I didn't change the subject. I just mentioned two subjects with one post since you mentioned those pitchers.

You didn't change the subject by saying the ranking aren't unanimous and I didn't either.

 

[saddles]

Boboy Witt Jr. goes second to the Royals. Makes for the highest father-son combo in the draft.

 

[DT LUNA]

Witt Jr to KC

 

[saddles]

Vaughn goes third. Would have loved to have been able to draft him or Bleday.

 

[saddles]

Marlins take Bleday 4th.

 

[saddles]

Abrams and Greene probably go in the next 2 picks and then who knows. Will Cincy take Lodolo at 7th?

 

[saddles]

The Tigers take Greene at 5th.

 

[DT LUNA]

Bad weather No tv