Do you feel like the overall draft strategy was different this year than previous? Soren didn’t seem to think so but I never really thought of it like that till I heard him make some comments. They certainly took on the risk they seem to like to do from previous years. Two college hitters in 11 years now isn’t exactly encouraging….JJ 0-1….so maybe it wasn’t a whole lot different and that has people a little nervous and negative on it. I don’t know enough about it to really say.
There is no reason they can’t keep all the pitchers you want to see on the 40 man roster. There really shouldn’t be that much of a bubble. Snider has no reason being on the 40 man…..and that he is makes me a little nervous they still have “there guys”. JJ has been MUCH better about moving on from guys so I like that change. Snider has never, and still doesn’t, make sense to me on that front though.
I think the type of pitcher they're going after appears to be pretty different to me. The fastballs with good carry and the sliders that actually miss bats. They do seem to have prioritized a bit more patience in the bats over the last couple of years. I don't know. I think people are nervous and negative because there's a well-earned idea that if the Royals do something, it was wrong. It's sort of the inverse of the great Sam Miller tweet - "LOVE this trade for the Rays. Who'd they give up? And who'd they get?" I'm not saying it's not deserved. Until they prove they do things right, it'll be assumed they did something wrong.
As for Snider, I'll be worried if a pitcher goes who matters and he stays. Until then, whatever I guess.
Yeah, I mean as far as Snider, it’s not a big deal and not even worth talking too until it actually matters I’m sure.
It is so interesting to see the differences when you go this way. You know if they would have gone outside the org on some changes we’d be looking at who they drafted and asking “they like the high school….x, y, z. Until they win, this FO is just going to have a hard time.
I just think with Snider that the Royals have moved on from guys relatively quickly this year, so I'm not too concerned about it until there's reason to be concerned about it.
Everything would definitely be in a different light if it was a whole new cast and crew, but I also think it's important to note that Danny Ontiveros has run two drafts now. He went college-college for his first two picks in his first draft and then high school-high school in his second. They also picked 15 college guys out of 21 this year, which may be a pretty typical lean for every team, I haven't looked.
You've mentioned him a few times but I didn't take the time to dig in to John McMillon's stats until I saw him at the top of every list in Anne Rogers' story about the improvements in the Royals' pitching development. This guy is an absolute beast. He is definitely going to have to be on the 40 man roster so I'm with you - add him now and bring him up.
It doesn’t matter how many or the number of picks, it’s who they pick that covers their needs, they graded as the lowest in multiple reputable sources. They also need the staff that is going to develop them
For the powers that be, you should do a blog that's just nothing but 'send MJ to AAA' 150 times. Also, I appreciate the draft insight. Read the Athletic's take on the Royals, which Keith Law seemed to think was middling at best, but clearly hadn't done quite the dive you have. For the semi-casual observer like me, who is a decades long baseball fan but someone who's never paid much attention to the MLB draft, it does generally come across as a complete roll of the dice. But then you think that can't be right bc some clubs clearly have consistent success w/ the draft and others don't. And then your pieces make some sense of it, which confirms maybe there is a real strategy deep in the madness that some clubs have figured out. But still feel pretty adrift in an open sea on this draft stuff. Thanks for providing some words on it that help make at least a little bit of sense of it all.
Final thought: it does seem weird to me that the new (giving JJ the benefit of doubt as 'new') Royals GM staff is supposed to be heavy on analytics, and yet this draft strategy did not appear to be playing the odds. Having a little cognitive dissonance with that. Also, Q was a catcher -- do you think he plays a material role in the draft strategy or is this the JJ show?
I'm still not in love with the draft, but I do think they did well beyond the early picks. The problem is that the early picks are the ones that are most likely to provide the most value, so that's an issue to me. My biggest issue of a lot of the draft talk is that it's "high school catchers bad!" and then moves on. It just goes beyond that, and I think there's a lot of nuance that is being lost.
On one hand, the draft didn't play the historical odds. On the other hand, I'll maintain my thought that what happened with Kyle Skipworth a decade and a half ago has zero bearing on what Blake Mitchell can be. The skillsets they've gone after have been analytically driven. Again, it may not end up good, but I just think there's way too much attention paid to history from so long ago. As for Q, he said he doesn't have much of anything to do with the draft. I'd guess that would be different if the draft wasn't in-season.
I hear you. Agree that the HS catcher stuff specifically was a little nutty -- just saw some comments on high strikeout rate for one of the collegiate picks and a couple other things that suggested more risky pick than others on the board at the time. But again, have no independent insight on this stuff so could be just misinterpreting or reading bad analysis.
This is going to sound weird given that I think shortening the draft to 20 rounds was a bad decision, but when there are 700ish players taken, every team will take players with questionable stats. Some guys are taken purely for organizational depth and that's it. Some guys are taken because they've got loud tools and the team hopes they can smooth out the rough edges. It's just the nature of that many players getting picked.
I couldn’t agree more that the Royals should use the rest of this year to get as many innings and AB’s as they can for the young guys. But will they? It is not their MO. The FO likes vets and Q likes giving Everyone an opportunity.
I mean I think it's very much their MO. Their average age of their offense is the youngest in baseball by a fair amount. The pitching staff isn't, but I don't necessarily think that's because they don't want it to be. They've already fairly aggressively promoted Alec Marsh and given Austin Cox a lot of run. I imagine that'll continue with others as well, especially after the trade deadline.
I don't know about FO liking vets -- as far as I can tell they've been shedding vets all season. And as for Q -- the 'everyones' he's giving opportunities are the younger guys. And when someone shows they've got the stuff, they get their spot. Just see Garcia taking over at 3d. They've also had a crazy run of injuries - Pasquatch, Massey, Isbell, Waters, Lopez, Olivares, even Salvy. You have to give the everyones a little run when you're dealing with that kind of roster IL churn. Also, I realize our KC fanbase is a little scarred from multiple years of cellar dwelling, but seems crazy to me to lay any of this at the feet of the on the field manager who has the pedigree of Q (Francona / Cash), the forward thinking approach that's adopted by the successful teams in the league overall, was one of (if not the most) desirable managerial candidates (at least among those candidates without prior managerial experience), and who by all accounts is a pretty upstanding human and member of the community. Anyway, I get the frustration, just feel like the blowback should be primarily targeted at ownership, not the current on field management group in their first half season in charge.
A lot of strategy talk, and I do agree that it does seem like they are targeting pitch profiles. This is nice to see regardless of what the profile is, at least it does seem there is a clear plan. I also question whether there has been a bit of a shift to draft more potential/higher ceiling players. It is looking more and more like our system (and MLB team) is full of AAAA players. I understand that strategy, but this requires good development...so...
Anne had a good article about the pitching development, which to me sounded like a baby step that was needed 10 years ago. Its positive, but to me it was yet another realization of how long the road really is. 6 years in. With a front office that may or may not be around much longer.
That was a great article from Anne and one that I've been preaching for awhile but she provided the great details about the changes. I would argue with categorizing it all as a baby step, though. It's a real big step and one that we've seen actual show pretty quick dividends. We'll see how it goes, but the early returns in the lower levels are pretty solid too, so here's hoping it keeps up and guys can start moving quickly.
I should have clarified what I meant by baby step. I agree it is a big deal and there have been tangible results. I also do not know Gibson or Friedman and the latter in particular seems to be very well regarded by many players. I also do not know the specifics of any changes made now or previously. My concern is that Gibson has been head of pitching for a few years. He hires a young, recently retired Friedman to coach in AAA. He than sees the results from last year. Vaults Friedman way up the ladder and a young, new to coaching Friedman heads up a lot of changes, which have brought some results. With this new information, it would seem the new integration of the training staff, analytics and individualized approaches (which is a basic in coaching and development IMO) was not employed previously (while Gibson was in charge). Again, I know very little, and hopefully more light will be shed on this topic. I'm very glad to see better results and see they are incorporating individual analytics and training methods. It sounds like they perhaps snagged a gem in Friedman. But he has 2 years of coaching/development experience? Hes now running our pitching development? It's hard for me to believe the Ray's and Guardians didn't start doing these things 10 years ago, and now have analytics/development staffs multiple times larger. Maybe I'm biased because I was really hoping we could get Brian bannister or any further investment in pitching development. I'm grateful for the change but fear the depth of the hole we have dug.
P.S. I'm sure I can speak for everyone hear when I say how much we truly appreciate the amazing work you (and Craig and Anne etc) do. Cant imagine how difficult it is to continue to write about this dumpster fire. But we're all in this together! Hang in there!
For what it’s worth, Gibson took over the pitching last year. And the Rays/Guardians/Dodgers/whoever all have young and inexperienced voices in key roles. I don’t especially care if they found an eight-year old who knew what they were doing as long as someone can help develop arms.
Completely agree with that and now I'm without a doubt hoping for an 8 year old baseball genius hire! My memory was thinking 2020 for Gibson, but maybe his title changed. I do truly hope the results continue, regardless of who is influencing them. I like and have some belief in JJ, and I think there will be more additions/changes in the minors after the season. Really wish these changes weren't happening 6 years into a rebuild, but I should probably be more thankful they're happening at all. Maybe the bigger question is why Sherman didn't give JJ the reigns day 1, but he saw change was needed and JJ is doing some good things. It somehow could always be worse..we could be those poor A's fans..prayers to them..
Gibson has been in the organization for a few years but took over the pitching overall last year. I also do think we’ll see more changes after the season and believe that part of the plan with Dayton/JJ happened in the timeframe it did because JJ changed his stripes a bit after Sherman took over (my theory is it’s because of Sherman). I wish it had happened sooner for sure though.
Hmmm. On the draft. In my opinion, it's irrelevant where a player is drafted after day 1 as you can't take them back.... they are all prospects now...the real issue is getting them on that conveyor belt to the bigs...thats what we should be talking about...how do the Royal do on that front?
I suppose. I think it's perfectly fair to discuss the draft within the week that it happens as there isn't anything beyond the actual draft to discuss with these guys yet. As they get into the system, there'll be plenty of conversation around their development.
Can you answer a draft for dummies question(s)? (I know very little about how the draft works, and quite frankly I haven't been too interested until this year as I am desperate for some hope):
How likely is it that a player doesn't sign? Assuming they must feel pretty confident that the higher rounds will sign, but if they think they are getting a player for under slot, can the player change his mind? Guessing the lower rounds, especially after 10, to be the more likely a player doesn't sign?
Random question: Are the players in todays pic pixillated by chance on my screen, or are they asking to be kept anonymous due to their numbers?
It’s somewhat likely that a player in a draft doesn’t sign, but pretty unlikely someone in the top 10 rounds doesn’t because if they don’t sign, the team loses their slot money from their bonus pool. It’s a big reason why rounds six or seven through 10 are college guys unlikely to turn down pro ball.
After the 10th round, teams will take risks because if those players don’t sign, it doesn’t impact their bonus pool at all. But even then, most will likely sign.
As for the pic, it was fine earlier and now it’s not. No clue why but I’ll respect the players’ wishes.
Ha, but bringing up players wishes... Lots of people I think are in the know suggest FAs need more money to come here, because they would rather play on contending teams.
Do you think these young guys also have some prejudice against signing with the royals/needing more money to do so?
Do you feel like the overall draft strategy was different this year than previous? Soren didn’t seem to think so but I never really thought of it like that till I heard him make some comments. They certainly took on the risk they seem to like to do from previous years. Two college hitters in 11 years now isn’t exactly encouraging….JJ 0-1….so maybe it wasn’t a whole lot different and that has people a little nervous and negative on it. I don’t know enough about it to really say.
There is no reason they can’t keep all the pitchers you want to see on the 40 man roster. There really shouldn’t be that much of a bubble. Snider has no reason being on the 40 man…..and that he is makes me a little nervous they still have “there guys”. JJ has been MUCH better about moving on from guys so I like that change. Snider has never, and still doesn’t, make sense to me on that front though.
I think the type of pitcher they're going after appears to be pretty different to me. The fastballs with good carry and the sliders that actually miss bats. They do seem to have prioritized a bit more patience in the bats over the last couple of years. I don't know. I think people are nervous and negative because there's a well-earned idea that if the Royals do something, it was wrong. It's sort of the inverse of the great Sam Miller tweet - "LOVE this trade for the Rays. Who'd they give up? And who'd they get?" I'm not saying it's not deserved. Until they prove they do things right, it'll be assumed they did something wrong.
As for Snider, I'll be worried if a pitcher goes who matters and he stays. Until then, whatever I guess.
Yeah, I mean as far as Snider, it’s not a big deal and not even worth talking too until it actually matters I’m sure.
It is so interesting to see the differences when you go this way. You know if they would have gone outside the org on some changes we’d be looking at who they drafted and asking “they like the high school….x, y, z. Until they win, this FO is just going to have a hard time.
I just think with Snider that the Royals have moved on from guys relatively quickly this year, so I'm not too concerned about it until there's reason to be concerned about it.
Everything would definitely be in a different light if it was a whole new cast and crew, but I also think it's important to note that Danny Ontiveros has run two drafts now. He went college-college for his first two picks in his first draft and then high school-high school in his second. They also picked 15 college guys out of 21 this year, which may be a pretty typical lean for every team, I haven't looked.
You've mentioned him a few times but I didn't take the time to dig in to John McMillon's stats until I saw him at the top of every list in Anne Rogers' story about the improvements in the Royals' pitching development. This guy is an absolute beast. He is definitely going to have to be on the 40 man roster so I'm with you - add him now and bring him up.
Yeah, he's a freaking monster. I'm surprised he only just now got to Omaha. I'm excited to see him soon.
It doesn’t matter how many or the number of picks, it’s who they pick that covers their needs, they graded as the lowest in multiple reputable sources. They also need the staff that is going to develop them
For the powers that be, you should do a blog that's just nothing but 'send MJ to AAA' 150 times. Also, I appreciate the draft insight. Read the Athletic's take on the Royals, which Keith Law seemed to think was middling at best, but clearly hadn't done quite the dive you have. For the semi-casual observer like me, who is a decades long baseball fan but someone who's never paid much attention to the MLB draft, it does generally come across as a complete roll of the dice. But then you think that can't be right bc some clubs clearly have consistent success w/ the draft and others don't. And then your pieces make some sense of it, which confirms maybe there is a real strategy deep in the madness that some clubs have figured out. But still feel pretty adrift in an open sea on this draft stuff. Thanks for providing some words on it that help make at least a little bit of sense of it all.
Final thought: it does seem weird to me that the new (giving JJ the benefit of doubt as 'new') Royals GM staff is supposed to be heavy on analytics, and yet this draft strategy did not appear to be playing the odds. Having a little cognitive dissonance with that. Also, Q was a catcher -- do you think he plays a material role in the draft strategy or is this the JJ show?
I'm still not in love with the draft, but I do think they did well beyond the early picks. The problem is that the early picks are the ones that are most likely to provide the most value, so that's an issue to me. My biggest issue of a lot of the draft talk is that it's "high school catchers bad!" and then moves on. It just goes beyond that, and I think there's a lot of nuance that is being lost.
On one hand, the draft didn't play the historical odds. On the other hand, I'll maintain my thought that what happened with Kyle Skipworth a decade and a half ago has zero bearing on what Blake Mitchell can be. The skillsets they've gone after have been analytically driven. Again, it may not end up good, but I just think there's way too much attention paid to history from so long ago. As for Q, he said he doesn't have much of anything to do with the draft. I'd guess that would be different if the draft wasn't in-season.
I hear you. Agree that the HS catcher stuff specifically was a little nutty -- just saw some comments on high strikeout rate for one of the collegiate picks and a couple other things that suggested more risky pick than others on the board at the time. But again, have no independent insight on this stuff so could be just misinterpreting or reading bad analysis.
This is going to sound weird given that I think shortening the draft to 20 rounds was a bad decision, but when there are 700ish players taken, every team will take players with questionable stats. Some guys are taken purely for organizational depth and that's it. Some guys are taken because they've got loud tools and the team hopes they can smooth out the rough edges. It's just the nature of that many players getting picked.
I couldn’t agree more that the Royals should use the rest of this year to get as many innings and AB’s as they can for the young guys. But will they? It is not their MO. The FO likes vets and Q likes giving Everyone an opportunity.
I mean I think it's very much their MO. Their average age of their offense is the youngest in baseball by a fair amount. The pitching staff isn't, but I don't necessarily think that's because they don't want it to be. They've already fairly aggressively promoted Alec Marsh and given Austin Cox a lot of run. I imagine that'll continue with others as well, especially after the trade deadline.
I don't know about FO liking vets -- as far as I can tell they've been shedding vets all season. And as for Q -- the 'everyones' he's giving opportunities are the younger guys. And when someone shows they've got the stuff, they get their spot. Just see Garcia taking over at 3d. They've also had a crazy run of injuries - Pasquatch, Massey, Isbell, Waters, Lopez, Olivares, even Salvy. You have to give the everyones a little run when you're dealing with that kind of roster IL churn. Also, I realize our KC fanbase is a little scarred from multiple years of cellar dwelling, but seems crazy to me to lay any of this at the feet of the on the field manager who has the pedigree of Q (Francona / Cash), the forward thinking approach that's adopted by the successful teams in the league overall, was one of (if not the most) desirable managerial candidates (at least among those candidates without prior managerial experience), and who by all accounts is a pretty upstanding human and member of the community. Anyway, I get the frustration, just feel like the blowback should be primarily targeted at ownership, not the current on field management group in their first half season in charge.
A lot of strategy talk, and I do agree that it does seem like they are targeting pitch profiles. This is nice to see regardless of what the profile is, at least it does seem there is a clear plan. I also question whether there has been a bit of a shift to draft more potential/higher ceiling players. It is looking more and more like our system (and MLB team) is full of AAAA players. I understand that strategy, but this requires good development...so...
Anne had a good article about the pitching development, which to me sounded like a baby step that was needed 10 years ago. Its positive, but to me it was yet another realization of how long the road really is. 6 years in. With a front office that may or may not be around much longer.
That was a great article from Anne and one that I've been preaching for awhile but she provided the great details about the changes. I would argue with categorizing it all as a baby step, though. It's a real big step and one that we've seen actual show pretty quick dividends. We'll see how it goes, but the early returns in the lower levels are pretty solid too, so here's hoping it keeps up and guys can start moving quickly.
I should have clarified what I meant by baby step. I agree it is a big deal and there have been tangible results. I also do not know Gibson or Friedman and the latter in particular seems to be very well regarded by many players. I also do not know the specifics of any changes made now or previously. My concern is that Gibson has been head of pitching for a few years. He hires a young, recently retired Friedman to coach in AAA. He than sees the results from last year. Vaults Friedman way up the ladder and a young, new to coaching Friedman heads up a lot of changes, which have brought some results. With this new information, it would seem the new integration of the training staff, analytics and individualized approaches (which is a basic in coaching and development IMO) was not employed previously (while Gibson was in charge). Again, I know very little, and hopefully more light will be shed on this topic. I'm very glad to see better results and see they are incorporating individual analytics and training methods. It sounds like they perhaps snagged a gem in Friedman. But he has 2 years of coaching/development experience? Hes now running our pitching development? It's hard for me to believe the Ray's and Guardians didn't start doing these things 10 years ago, and now have analytics/development staffs multiple times larger. Maybe I'm biased because I was really hoping we could get Brian bannister or any further investment in pitching development. I'm grateful for the change but fear the depth of the hole we have dug.
P.S. I'm sure I can speak for everyone hear when I say how much we truly appreciate the amazing work you (and Craig and Anne etc) do. Cant imagine how difficult it is to continue to write about this dumpster fire. But we're all in this together! Hang in there!
For what it’s worth, Gibson took over the pitching last year. And the Rays/Guardians/Dodgers/whoever all have young and inexperienced voices in key roles. I don’t especially care if they found an eight-year old who knew what they were doing as long as someone can help develop arms.
Completely agree with that and now I'm without a doubt hoping for an 8 year old baseball genius hire! My memory was thinking 2020 for Gibson, but maybe his title changed. I do truly hope the results continue, regardless of who is influencing them. I like and have some belief in JJ, and I think there will be more additions/changes in the minors after the season. Really wish these changes weren't happening 6 years into a rebuild, but I should probably be more thankful they're happening at all. Maybe the bigger question is why Sherman didn't give JJ the reigns day 1, but he saw change was needed and JJ is doing some good things. It somehow could always be worse..we could be those poor A's fans..prayers to them..
Gibson has been in the organization for a few years but took over the pitching overall last year. I also do think we’ll see more changes after the season and believe that part of the plan with Dayton/JJ happened in the timeframe it did because JJ changed his stripes a bit after Sherman took over (my theory is it’s because of Sherman). I wish it had happened sooner for sure though.
Hmmm. On the draft. In my opinion, it's irrelevant where a player is drafted after day 1 as you can't take them back.... they are all prospects now...the real issue is getting them on that conveyor belt to the bigs...thats what we should be talking about...how do the Royal do on that front?
I suppose. I think it's perfectly fair to discuss the draft within the week that it happens as there isn't anything beyond the actual draft to discuss with these guys yet. As they get into the system, there'll be plenty of conversation around their development.
Agreed....they got to get as many looks at the prospects as possible. Stop farting around and get those guys up!
Can you answer a draft for dummies question(s)? (I know very little about how the draft works, and quite frankly I haven't been too interested until this year as I am desperate for some hope):
How likely is it that a player doesn't sign? Assuming they must feel pretty confident that the higher rounds will sign, but if they think they are getting a player for under slot, can the player change his mind? Guessing the lower rounds, especially after 10, to be the more likely a player doesn't sign?
Random question: Are the players in todays pic pixillated by chance on my screen, or are they asking to be kept anonymous due to their numbers?
It’s somewhat likely that a player in a draft doesn’t sign, but pretty unlikely someone in the top 10 rounds doesn’t because if they don’t sign, the team loses their slot money from their bonus pool. It’s a big reason why rounds six or seven through 10 are college guys unlikely to turn down pro ball.
After the 10th round, teams will take risks because if those players don’t sign, it doesn’t impact their bonus pool at all. But even then, most will likely sign.
As for the pic, it was fine earlier and now it’s not. No clue why but I’ll respect the players’ wishes.
Ha, but bringing up players wishes... Lots of people I think are in the know suggest FAs need more money to come here, because they would rather play on contending teams.
Do you think these young guys also have some prejudice against signing with the royals/needing more money to do so?
I think it’s certainly possible, but I don’t know one way or another.