Baseball America announced a slight mid-season re-rank of its top 30 prospects for every team on 7/9/24, and the Nats top 30 saw a bit of movement. Here’s a quick look at their top 30 right now plus a discussion on the changes they’ve made since the beginning of the season.
BA Also put out a quickie update in early May, so we’ll talk about the changes these players have had from January to May to July.
Here’s the latest list and the link for subscribers.
| Rank | Last Name | First Name | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Wood | James | OF (Corner) |
| 2 | Crews | Dylan | OF (CF) |
| 3 | House | Brady | SS/3B |
| 4 | Cavalli | Cade | RHP (Starter) |
| 5 | Morales | Yohandy | 3B |
| 6 | Hassell III | Robert | OF (CF) |
| 7 | Lipscomb | Trey | 3B |
| 8 | Susana | Jarlin | RHP (Starter) |
| 9 | Rutledge | Jackson | RHP (Starter) |
| 10 | Lile | Daylen | OF (CF) |
| 11 | Vaquero | Cristian | OF (CF) |
| 12 | Hurtado | Victor | OF |
| 13 | Bennett | Jake | LHP (Starter) |
| 14 | Lara | Andry | RHP (Starter) |
| 15 | Sykora | Travis | RHP (Starter) |
| 16 | Herz | DJ | LHP (Starter) |
| 17 | Green | Elijah | OF (CF) |
| 18 | Pinckney | Andrew | OF (Corner) |
| 19 | Brzykcy | Zach | RHP (Reliever) |
| 20 | Feliz | Angel | 3B/SS |
| 21 | Millas | Drew | C |
| 22 | Henry | Cole | RHP (Starter) |
| 23 | Made | Kevin | SS |
| 24 | De La Rosa | Jeremy | OF (Corner) |
| 25 | Cruz | Armando | SS |
| 26 | Nunez | Nasim | SS |
| 27 | Baker | Darren | 2B |
| 28 | Alvarez | Andrew | LHP (Starter) |
| 29 | Lord | Brad | RHP (Starter) |
| 30 | Brown | Marcus | SS/2B |
Here’s my thoughts and observations.
- #1 and #2 flipped in May, with Wood taking over for Crews. No surprise here.
- 3-4-5 have stated the exact same, in the same order. They havn’t dinged Cavalli for his rehab difficulties, nor Morales for his struggles in AA so far.
- Rutledge dumped from #6 to #9. #6 was always too high for this guy, even based on his 2023 rise. Now we’re seeing him come back to earth. His 2024 numbers do not merit a top 10 system ranking.
- Lipscomb has gone from 16 to 9 to 7. Soon he’ll be going to “graduated” since it seems like he’ll be playing 3B in the majors the rest of the way.
- Parker: started the year #29, was up to #10 in May, now graduated. Not a bad 5th rounder.
- Susana rightfully gets bumped up a few slots, from #11 to #8. Go look at his game logs for this year; whoever he talked to after his May 24th start did him a solid: since that start, 7 starts, 35 innings (5 innings a start exactly, no more, no less); 15 hits, 13 walks, 2 ER, total. 57 Ks. Wow. Talk about a good month.
- Vaquero dumped a few spots from #8 to #11: dude’s hitting .157 this year. I mean, if they’ve dumped Green as far as they have, why not Vaquero as well? He’s still ranked this high entirely based on the size of his signing bonus.
- Andry Lara, massive riser. He went from #31 pre-season to unranked last May, now he’s #15. He’s been solid the entire year and rightfully earned the promotion to AA. I’ve been complaining about Lara’s progression for several years, but no taking away his 2024 so far.
- Sykora holding steady at #15, which seems to be underselling what he’s done so far in his first pro season. Like Susana, the team won’t let him pitch past the 5th inning, so he’s got a slew of “5ip 1hit 8ks zero walks zero runs” outings as of late. His absolute worst outing was his pro debut and he’s nearly in line for a promotion. He should be top 10 material soon.
- Herz also holding steady at #16, probably unfairly given that he’s made his MLB debut. I mean, lets be honest; why would Herz be ranked lower than Rutledge right now? It was Herz who got the call-up, not Rutledge. Dumb.
- A reminder: Jacob Young started the year as a #18 prospect, now is projecting for a 4-win season and rookie of the year votes. Bravo.
- Green continues his slide: started at #9 (where I thought he was actually UNDER ranked), now slipped from #12 to #17. Ouch. He’s hitting .174 with 136 Ks in 67 games as of this writing. What the hell is going on here?
- Not much movement for the guys in the 18-25 range; mostly fringe guys or former top prospects who continue to scuffle.
- Nunez, who still retains his rookie status by ABs since he’s barely playing, dumped to #26. The team has lasted this long with him, but honestly, does anyone see him actually working out based on what we see? I’d also like to point out that it is now mid July; he’s had 13 total at-bats this year. 13! he’s 1-13 for the season.
- Brad Lord comes in at #29, the first time we’ve seen any prospect ranking shop rank him. Lord was, lest we forget, an 18th round SENIOR draftee who was a reliever in college from a mid-major UCF, who worked his way into the low-A rotation last season, then held his own in 9 starts to finish the season, got moved to AA to start this season, completely owned it, and is now in the AAA rotation. An 18th round draft pick. Bravo to him and his success.
- Marcus Brown holding steady at #30. Not sure why. He’s hitting .203 in low-A despite coming out of a major conference.
- The only player previously listed not here is TJ White, who got bumped from #28 to #30+.
Missing? I think you can make a case for a slew of guys to be on this list at the expense of the likes of Brown or Nunez. Luckham, Cox, Quintana, Shuman come immediately to mind. But, this was clearly not a major overhaul/analysis either.
Soon we’re ramping up for draft week!
Pretty good list, I think. Very happy to see Lord getting some attention.
Sykora and Herz too low, Lipscomb too high (though you make a good point that his ranking will be moot imminently).
I actually think they’re handling Vaquero and Green correctly. This is Vaquero’s first season of serious struggles, and I think you let his tools and projection hold his ranking though it. Dropping a couple of places feels correct.
And, with Green, it’s not just that he’s still well below league average production despite repeating and not being all that young anymore for the level – it’s also that there’s been no progress in his K% at all. Over the last 30 days he’s struck out half the time. He was always a high variance project, but the project was to work on his swing and reduce his strikeouts. It’s now been almost two years and there’s been absolutely no progress. His other tools are loud enough that he’ll keep getting chances, but now is the time when he should be falling fast. Around 20th seems right, and maybe off the list altogether a year from now (though JDLR is still on there, so who knows what it takes to actually fall off).
I’m also with you on preferring some different names after Made, but I have their picks (other than Brown) in my top 40, so it’s just quibbles about whether the folks you name should be there instead. Or Grissom or Ribalta or Sinclair. (I know you disagree, but I’d be thrilled if we could trade JDLR or Baker for promising relief-only prospect like Ribalta.)
SMS
10 Jul 24 at 11:34 am
the fact that Green has made zero adjustment and zero progress in his 2nd season indicates that either:
1. he is incapable of change, and the Nats scouts badly missed on seeing this during his showcase exploits
2. he is refusing to change, even in the face of catastrophic, embarrassing strikeout rates, a real indictment on the player’s makeup and coachability
3. The Nats are just telling him to keep selling out for power, strikeouts be damned (which… is doubtful).
this would be, if #1 or #2 turns out to be true, easily the biggest 1st round miss in the history of the team. Bigger than Romero (which was a really dumb pick at the time and as it t urned out), worse than Aaron Crow, and worse than Colten Willems.
Todd Boss
10 Jul 24 at 1:20 pm
I have to think number 2 is pretty unlikely as well. The kid grew up rich, so I doubt the bonus went to head. And if he were failing in the majors, maybe he could delude himself into thinking it’ll just work itself out. But he’s failing in low-A!
He has to be (at least so far) incapable of making the required changes, and of course that is very disappointing.
I’m not sure I agree, though, that it makes it a singularly bad draft pick. If the team thought there was a 30% chance that he could figure it out, and that made the probability distribution make sense at the time, does the decision become bad in retrospect if it doesn’t happen?
Also, while clearly at this point we never expect Green to reach the peak of, say, Carter Kieboom, is Green’s outcome meaningfully worse for the franchise? Once a player fails to create value for the big league club, it seems like all busts are pretty much equal. (From the POV of the team / fans, I mean. Kieboom will have a much better story of his time in baseball than we expect Green will and I’m certain that matters a ton to these players.)
I didn’t like the pick at the time, but top 10 picks fail to make the majors at a pretty regular clip. The only thing unique about Green is that he was such a high variance pick that the (median? 20th percentile?) outcome that we’re seeing can’t even get a social promotion to Wilmington.
SMS
10 Jul 24 at 1:53 pm
You CAN fix things if you WORK. Wood in 87 games at AA in 2023: 33.7 K%. Wood in 52 games at AAA in 2024: 18.2%. Wow. Wood and Lipscomb worked out together over the winter in Rockville with one of their high school or club coaches. They’re both making MLB per diem now and living well. Green is riding buses four levels lower. He’s got a lot of money in the bank, but better hope he’s saved it.
I thought at the time that the Green pick was too much of a risk, as I did Romero and Denaburg. High schooler in general are risky (as are collegians who have been beaten up by their own teammates!), although I was OK with the House and Kieboom picks. In fact, I was shocked that House fell to the Nats. I also want no part of Konnor Griffin this year with several talented collegians likely to still be on the board.
KW
10 Jul 24 at 2:55 pm
@SMS; does his failure make the franchise worse? Absolutely. MLB franchises view bonus dollars as investments, not sunk costs. And players who get big money are given many more chances to fail, at the expense of other players, which in the long run hurts the club. You can see this plainly with the way the Nats dealt with Antuna or Denaburg; both were big time bonus players, both given year after year after year of underserved opportunity. The biggest problem is when a team chooses to protect its “investment” with a 40-man slot … that has real MLB impact.
Todd Boss
10 Jul 24 at 3:54 pm
@KW: be prepared for either Griffin or Rainey at #10 to the Nats. Unless there’s a shock of a pick, it seems like what’s going to happen. It reminds me of the Giolito pick in osme respects; Rizzo was pretty clear; when Giolito fell to them, he was their #1 name on teh board and they dind’t deviate. There’s only a couple names i’m seeing as possibly slipping to the nats out of the “consensus top 10” and its guys like Montgomery (broken ankle) and Kurtz (1B-only). I think Tibbs or Moore would be a reach, as would Yesevage. I mean, maybe they cut a deal with someone like that, save a few 100k and throw that at a kid later on?
Todd Boss
10 Jul 24 at 3:56 pm
Law says this isn’t a year to save to pay in later rounds, says the quality dropoff is too steep.
McDaniel’s final big board (Insider):
https://www.espn.com/mlb/insider/story/_/id/40520082/2024-mlb-draft-rankings-30-top-250-prospects-final-condon-bazzana-caglianone
As far as draft-pick slotting, folks are just guessing. They’re guessing a high schooler to the Nats because of the Green and House picks. Rizzo has a whole new team doing the evaluation, so I’m thinking/hoping there will be some different conclusions. I would take Montgomery or Kurtz over one of the high schoolers in a heartbeat. I agree with Tibbs or Moore being a reach. I’m on the fence on Yesavage, who is certainly built like a prototypical Rizzo pitching draft pick. Teams are so desperate for pitching that a lot of the mocks have Yesavage gone by #10, which would help push some of the college hitters toward the Nats.
Honestly, Kurtz would fill a gaping hole at 1B, where he’s also said to be a stellar defender. McDaniel says that “he’s polished enough to move quickly through the minors.”
KW
10 Jul 24 at 4:30 pm
But Carter Kieboom is the one who took up 40-man spot for years and cost the team 2 WAR over 133 games. It sounds to me like the Nats may have been better off had he stalled out in A ball instead.
Certainly opportunity cost is a thing, and I think we agree that Green didn’t seem like the best option even at the time. But I don’t think the pick is any worse because Green’s version of failure is striking out immediately and forever, rather than being quite good for years and then being unable to make the last hardest step.
(I’m ignoring the trade market, which isn’t entirely fair. The Nats would obviously have strongly preferred Green to do very well in the minors and then trade him over Kieboom’s arc or Green’s expected one. But that can be overstated too – we didn’t trade Kieboom when he had value, for example.)
SMS
10 Jul 24 at 4:45 pm
SMS–you just can’t ignore the trade market. It definitely matters whether the prospect flames out at A- ball (like Green has so far) or MLB (like C. Kieboom). There’s no difference between those two outcomes only if you think a franchise drafts, develops, and plays (or not) all prospects. But a franchise can also trade prospects, like you note.
Yes, the Nats didn’t trade Kieboom when his value was at its highest and *that* decision–the one to hold Kieboom rather than to trade him–is the poor decision the franchise made. The decision to *draft* him wasn’t a poor one because he did develop and he, at one point, had more trade value than the average 20-something first round pick. The Nats bought an asset, it increased in value, and didn’t sell it before the bottom dropped out.
Green is different. His value (so far) has been on a one-way downward trajectory. It may be overstating it somewhat to say that Green’s value as a prospect was the highest the day he was drafted, but it’s not far off. There has never been a point where his value on the trade market was higher than the the average #4 pick (or whatever). Unlike Kieboom, the Nats bought an asset in Green that immediately went down in value and is no basically worthless. Bad decision!
Derek
10 Jul 24 at 5:17 pm
But Green was universally acknowledged to be a high variance pick. He had 30% strikeout rates in high school – the reddest of flags there can be, outside of some character issues. I bet even the guys in the Nationals FO who were pushing Rizzo to draft him would have admitted that he had a higher chance of never getting out of A-ball than a typical 1st round pick.
I’d expect they would’ve countered with something along the lines of “I don’t care what the odds are that he fails in A ball, and I don’t care what the odds are that he fails in AA or AAA either. I care what the odds are that he succeeds in the majors and magnitude of his impact if he does. On the first point, it’s not great, but it’s all not that much worse than any of these other guys and, on the second, his ceiling is off the charts. MVP votes every year. Would you rather have 40% of $10 or 5% of $100?”
If you disagree, you have to make the case that the true chances were 2% not 5% and the fact that failure happened doesn’t provide much relevant evidence one way or the other. (You could also make the case that the $100 should be $20, but I don’t think anyone is really doubting that end of the equation on Green.)
Certainly if their logic was “Don’t worry, we’ll shine this toolsy kid up in the low minors for a year or two and then trade him to some other GM who can’t see the flaws”, you can definitely say they made a bad decision. But I don’t think anyone thought that was the play with Green.
SMS
10 Jul 24 at 7:09 pm
Query: do you cease being a prospect when you exceed rookie eligibility? Because in that case Nunez should no longer be considered a prospect because he has exceeded 45 days on the roster:
https://www.mlb.com/glossary/rules/rookie-eligibility
John C.
10 Jul 24 at 7:10 pm
Maybe Nunez should no longer be considered a prospect because of his utter inability to make contact with a little white object? We’re more than halfway through the season, so they seem committed to the bit to keep him.
KW
10 Jul 24 at 8:35 pm
Derek makes a key point — it’s not just developing players, it’s making the right internal evaluation of them and maximizing trade value. Souza did have one 30-homer season after being traded, but he brought back a true superstar in Trea, plus a guy who would have been an solid rotation piece if his arm hadn’t given out (Ross). They made the right call on Wil Crowe and got an above-average regular in Bell. They flipped a young Alex Meyer (who was becoming a top-10) prospect for a solid regular in Denard Span, while Meyer never really panned out.
Conversely, they knew that Kieboom lost his extra-base power in the second half of 2019, yet he still had top-15 prospect rankings that subsequent offseason and could have been moved then with considerable value. There were rumors at one point that Robles could have brought Realmuto in return, but they thought he was going to be a star. They insisted that the Tigers take Robbie Ray in the Fister trade instead of Taylor Jordan.
Trading Giolito was probably one of their toughest calls. I agreed at the time that it looked like they didn’t know what to do with him to help him fulfill his potential. As it was, it took the White Sox three seasons to get him straightened out, coincidentally the same season that Eaton was helping the Nats win the World Series. For all the gnashing of teeth in the Natosphere about Giolito becoming an all-star, his career bWAR is only 12.5, with an ERA of 4.43. It’s hard to believe that he’ll only be turning 30 this weekend. He was still 17 when he was drafted.
As for Green, a lot of evaluators were blinded by the four tools other than “hit.” Multiple reputable outlets wrote of him potentially being a 40/40 centerfielder. No one even stopped to observe that Mike Trout, Junior Griffey, and even Willie Bloody Mays never had a 40/40 season, and Trout and Griffey kept getting hurt playing CF.
Now we’re told that Konnor Griffin can be a 30/30 SS or CF, if we ignore his contact issues against substandard high school competition. Thank you but I’ll pass.
KW
10 Jul 24 at 9:10 pm
Kieboom: lets all not forget just how good a prospect he was. At his peak, he was ranked #15 in all the minors by Baseball America
https://www.baseballamerica.com/rankings/2020-top-100-prospects/?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=email
I do not blame the team for a) keeping him as long as they did, b) not trading him.
Now, letting Yasel Antuna sit on the 40-man for three full seasons while never getting above A ball? Ridiculous.
Green so far is neither. He’s a 20yr old in low-A who isn’t blocking anyone except a $10k signing from the DR.
Todd Boss
11 Jul 24 at 9:34 am
Nunez and rookie eligibility: yes, service days on MLB active roster *should* count and he should no longer be a prospect. But one or two shops specifically ignore service time days and ONLY go by innings pitched or plate appearances. Which is why he continues to be on these lists longer than he should. I think a guy like Millas or Pineda had the same issue.
Todd Boss
11 Jul 24 at 9:36 am
I have one more mock draft post coming, but I thought Keith Law’s mock today was interesting.
10. Washington Nationals: Trey Yesavage, RHP, East Carolina
The Nats are at the mercy of the board a little bit; the way I’ve lined it up in this scenario has all of the obvious college guys gone by this pick, so they’re looking at the next tier, with Yesavage, Waldschmidt, Christian Moore, etc., along with Griffin as a longshot (I doubt they’d go that direction again given 2022 first-round pick Elijah Green’s struggles).
this will be music to KW’s ears … the Nats in this mock take Yesevage OVER Griffen b/c Rainer was already gone, as was Montgomery and other obvious picks. I’d be ok with this.
Todd Boss
11 Jul 24 at 9:37 am
Yesavage’s 2024 numbers are off the charts: .203 ERA, 0.87 WHIP, 14.0 K/9, 4.7 H/9. Yes, it wasn’t against the highest tier of competition, but he did dominate a strong Wake Forest lineup in the regionals, all while coming back from a freakish collapsed lung.
Law’s take:
Yesavage has a super-short arm action but makes it work, throwing a ton of strikes with his four-seamer and a nasty splitter that has both the typical heavy bottom of that pitch and some run that can make it look like a downward-breaking slider. Whatever you call it, it’s a wipeout pitch for him. He does throw an actual breaking ball but it’s a clear third pitch, with the splitter his go-to weapon for hitters on both sides of the plate.
If you don’t mind or care about the short arm action, the question is whether he can be a successful major-league starter as a fastball/splitter guy. I think he can as long as he holds up. He did miss a couple of starts in late May with a collapsed lung but returned to make one start in the Regional.
KW
11 Jul 24 at 10:28 am
SMS–there’s a difference between saying “I think X is worth the risk” and “I don’t care about the risk.”
“We should take Green because the magnitude of the upside scenario is so good it’s worth the very real possibility he flames out at Low-A” is different from “it doesn’t matter if he flames out at A, AA, or AAA.” There IS a difference between those scenarios and it DOES matter.
So far, what has happened with Green is the worst case scenario–and it’s the worst case scenario even considering that Green was a risky, high-variance pick. The worst case scenario is bad! And much worse than Kieboom, who busted but did not bust in the worst possible way like Green has.
Green’s saving graces are that he’s still young and has athletic pedigree. It’s possible he improves, but man he has a long way to go.
Derek
11 Jul 24 at 10:55 am
I don’t think that Griffin or Rainer would be a disastrous pick on the face of things. If you think the high schooler has a higher ceiling than the collegians available, then you take the high schooler. In 2021, I agreed that House probably had a chance at a higher ceiling than the college guys who were still on the board at #11. That wasn’t the case when the Nats reached for Green in 2022.
This year, I don’t think we’re talking about super high-ceiling choices among either collegians or preps who will be available at #10. Some love Griffin’s other four tools, but as we know, if the hit tool is questionable, then the whole package is questionable.
With the Nats further along in the rebuild, my preference would be a collegian who could help in two or three years, not a prep who is four or five years away. Of the collegians most mentioned with a chance to fall, Kurtz also slots in perfectly in a position of need, albeit not one thought of to have overall “value.” With Montgomery they’d just be taking the bat with the thought that they could figure out where to play him if he hits, as the system is loaded with outfielders. Starting pitching (Yesavage) seemed like more of a need until the advances this season by Irvin, Parker, Herz, Lara, Susana, and Sykora, with Cavalli and Bennett also still expected to have high ceilings when healthy. But as things have played out for nearly every team recently, there’s no such thing as having too much starting pitching.
Several mocks think some team ahead of the Nats will reach for Yesavage because of the desperation for pitching. It’s like the NFL with quarterbacks, with several always taken ahead of their projected class rank because of the desperation factor.
For the second round, there are a good handful of college catchers ranked near where the Nats are picking. Law has four listed between 35 and 46. With Millas and Adams seeming to hit AAAA ceilings and Ruiz not firmly grasping the starting role, backstop seems to be a position of need for the organization.
KW
11 Jul 24 at 11:12 am
Well, it seems no one agrees with me, and that’s fine. I just want to ask the group one more question before I drop it.
Green is still trying to improve, and never say never, but let’s assume for this argument that this is who he is, and that the rest of his career arc consists of 2.5 years of struggling at low-A, a hail mary promotion as a 23 year old and his release when it doesn’t do the trick.
My question is: if given the opportunity to swap that future out for CK’s career, how much would the Nats pay for the privilege? The terms don’t require the Nats to roster him and lose value from below replacement play, but the deal is public, so you can’t greater fool another GM when he runs a 120 wRC+ in AAA.
Put another way, how much do you think it’s worth to the team to have a homegrown competent AAA org guy instead of signing a MLFA to fill that spot?
SMS
11 Jul 24 at 12:00 pm
SMS, I don’t mean this in a mean way, but I can’t following what you’re arguing. Is it that Green’s future as of now, no matter how imperiled, is worth more than Kieboom’s now? Of course it is. But you’re comparing an org guy to a #5 overall pick. (A has-been to a never-was?)
There’s a significant difference in missing on the #5 overall pick (Green) than there is on #28 (Kieboom). Also, one could argue that they didn’t “miss” on Kieboom. He was in the majors after just three full seasons in the minors and was the #11 overall prospect per Baseball Prospectus, #15 Baseball America. That’s pretty darn good for a #28 pick.
What they “missed” on was internal evaluation. Kieboom’s extra-base hits dried up in the second half of 2019, even in the PCL, and they really never came back. His defense at 3B was never MLB quality. He still had considerable trade value entering 2020, but they chose to ride with him and overlook some considerable warning flags. Rendon walked, but they seemed to think that they had the replacement in house.
More than halfway through Green’s second full year of pro ball, by which time Kieboom was advancing to AA, Green is “hitting” .175 at low A and striking out an insane 46% clip. He’s not anywhere near the top 100 of anyone’s rankings, and he’s sinking in all the organizational rankings, as noted above. He was the #5 pick just two years ago but has zero trade value.
Maybe that’s a response to what you’re saying: at his peak, Kieboom had a trade value that likely could have returned an everyday regular. Right now, it’s hard to imagine Green reaching that level. This is not to say that we don’t hope he turns things around. Of course we do. He has so much natural physical power that if someone could successfully get him to shorten his swing, the ball would still travel. But he’s got to wrap his head around that concept and work-work-work to master it. To me, that’s the most concerning aspect of his story: everyone knew how he needed to improve in the offseason, but he came back with nothing seemingly changed.
KW
11 Jul 24 at 2:46 pm
I’m not sure why you think shortening his swing is the answer. I’ve watched him extensively and that thought has never crossed my mind.
the act of hitting a baseball has a certain degree of natural instinct to it, in my mind. you can see some little kids swat at a wiffle ball and never miss. he may not have that instinct and all the training in the world may not be able to overcome it. the fact that the majority of reports still had him with the highest upside means that maybe they thought it could be ingrained.
all reports indicate he has worked hard, something I never heard about Antuna for example. he would not be the first high prospect not to be able to make it. most actually don’t.
FredMD
11 Jul 24 at 3:18 pm
@KW – No offense taken, and I’ll try to explain myself a bit better.
My main point about Green is that I expect that, even on draft day, the Nats thought of him as having a range of possible outcomes. Some of time he’d fail like he has. Some of the time he almost makes the majors. Some of the time he’s an MVP. Etc. They didn’t think “We can fix his swing and make him an MVP.” They thought “We might be able to fix his swing and, if so, he’s an MVP.” I think is how they think of all draftees, and all prospects, really.
I obviously don’t know exactly what the principals were thinking, but it seems clear to me that Green was a much more volatile prospect than typical first round picks, and I believe this kind of extreme failure in low-A was always considered to have a decent likelihood of occurring. If Cavalli or House or Crews had failed in this way, it would have been surprising enough that we might be forced to admit that our understanding of their distribution on draft day was flawed. But with Green, it isn’t unexpected enough to force a change to our priors. And since his prospect value was more about whether he becomes an impact major leaguer 2% or 8% of the time than whether he fails in low-A 30% of the time or 50% of the time, I just don’t think we’ve learned anything new about Green’s true distribution at the time of the draft or about the quality of the Nats’ decision-making by how badly he has failed.
I only brought Kieboom into it as an example to show that the team doesn’t always benefit when a top prospect is almost good enough vs when they never develop at all. If you add in the value of Kieboom’s -2 WAR at $8M per, he cost the team $18M of value vs Green’s $6.5M.
So while I agree that Green’s failure as a high draft pick is singular from his perspective – he is doing much worse than his peers at “becoming a good baseball player” – it’s not at all atypical from the team’s perspective, in that they only care that he has failed at “becoming a productive major leaguer” and that happens to top picks fairly often.
SMS
11 Jul 24 at 4:00 pm
@SMS I think i see what you’re saying. It’s the analysis of “floor” and “ceiling” together to evaluate a prospect.
Let’s take, for example, a solid college junior like our own Jake Bennett. You draft him knowing that his floor is probably pretty high; you believe he has a high likelihood of at least getting to the majors barring an injury. But you also know he’s likely not going to ever be a true ace in the league; you expect him to top out as a 2/3 if everything goes great, maybe a 4/5 if not. So put that risk profile together and you get a prospect.
Now, you take Green: his floor is lower (total flameout before ever going anywhere) but his ceiling based on his raw tools and athleticism was Willie Mays. So, you accept the risk for the possible reward.
Todd Boss
11 Jul 24 at 6:52 pm
@Todd – Exactly. And if Bennett is drafted and then actually ends up not being able to find the zone in A-ball, I think it’s totally fair to say the team messed up the scouting and made a big mistake with the pick. Because that kind of failure wasn’t contemplated as among of the likely outcomes, and the pick’s internal logic would collapse.
But when Green fails like this, it’s kind of baked in to the set of possibilities and doesn’t necessarily mean it was bad decision making.
It has been a very bad outcome – that 8% or whatever is down to less 1% now – and the pick has plummeted in value like Derek said, but that doesn’t make it bad process.
(I mean, it might have also been bad process and bad decision making, but I don’t think the particularly bad outcome should weigh very heavily into that evaluation.)
SMS
11 Jul 24 at 7:58 pm
You have to quantify the levels of risk, though, and the risk with Green was exceedingly high, much higher than it was with House, or than it seems to be with Griffin. I said at the time that the best-case scenario I could see for him was Byron Buxton, who has never come close to the superstar status predicted of a #2 overall pick, in large part because of K problems. And of course right now we’d happily take Green developing into Buxton (glad to see FredMD’s report that Green is apparently a hard worker).
The other key factor is who were the other options. Projected 1/1 Brooks Lee fell to #8 to the Twins and is already in the majors. Ghost at NatsTalk had a draft crush on Lee. Opinions were divided about how much star-level potential he had, but there was very low risk, good promise that he could at least be an MLB regular, and in a short amount of time.
Of course teams take wild draft swings every year. Thank goodness the Royals took the great Bubba Starling at #5, the next great five-tool high school OF superstar. They passed on a stellar college hitter, albeit one who had some positional questions and an injury history. I wonder whatever became of that Rendon kid. (And imagine adding him to the Royals’ 2014-15 World Series teams.)
As for Kieboom, wow, take a look at the first couple of rounds of the 2016 draft. What a dumpster fire overall, in part because of the conventional wisdom that it was a high-school-heavy draft. The Nats have already DFA’d the #2 overall pick (Senzel), #18 (Rutherford), and #26 (Kieboom). Only Will Smith (#32) in the 1st round has topped 10 bWAR, although there’s a strong run in the 2d round (after the Nats had already made three picks) of Bryan Reynolds (#59), Pete Alonso (#64), and Bo Bichette (#66). Sean Murphy went in the 3d (#83). Of the so-far 10+ WAR guys, all but Bichette were collegians.
KW
11 Jul 24 at 9:13 pm
I missed the MLB.com mock that has the Nats on Rainer over Griffin (with Yesavage still on the board):
https://www.mlb.com/news/mlb-pipeline-2024-mock-draft-july-4
Law also has Rainer ranked one slot ahead of Griffin on his big board. Law on Rainer:
Rainer put on a show at the National High School Invitational this year, buoyed by the absence of any other first-round prospects at the event, and in the process probably locked himself into a top-10 pick. He’s by far the best high school infielder in the class, a plus defender at short with a 70 arm who is 93-94 off the mound as well (but, I’m told, doesn’t want to be a two-way guy, to which I say hallelujah). He also shows incredible instincts and leadership on the field.
Rainer’s got power, with good loft in his swing to drive the ball to all fields, but it’s not great bat speed and he’s struggled when facing above-average velocity. Everybody throws hard these days, so he’s going to have to find a way to catch up to it as he enters pro ball. The plus defense/20-homer potential is enough to get someone to roll the dice on his bat in the top third of the first round.
—-
I’m sorry, but I read that and think “go to college and learn how to hit pro velocity on someone else’s dime.” But if forced to choose between the high schoolers, I’d take the one with the better hit tool (Rainer) every time. Rainer also has played at a much more competitive level in LA than Griffin has in Mississippi.
But if it were me, I’d take Yesavage over either of them. As I’ve noted, I really suspect that Yesavage with go in the top 9, though, with teams so desperate for pitching.
KW
12 Jul 24 at 9:58 am
saw an interesting comment while reading about Senzel’s release. only 15% of top ten draft choices ever have a 2.0 WAR season. while not verifiable it still indicates the need for depth and development in the minor league system. something that’s been lacking to date for the Nats.
FredMD
12 Jul 24 at 11:18 am
Kiley McDaniel has a new mock out today and has the Nats taking a player I haven’t seen them linked with previously:
10. Washington Nationals
James Tibbs III, RF, Florida State
I still don’t know if the Nats’ board looks like past Nats’ draft boards, given the new execs involved. Rainer seems like the player they’re angling for (that would fit the historical tendencies of high-upside players) with Tibbs and Montgomery (who do not) as other likely options and Caminiti also being considered (definitely fits).
Chris
12 Jul 24 at 12:41 pm
Callis put out a mock last night and has us taking Rainer.
Chris
12 Jul 24 at 12:50 pm
I don’t know enough about Tibbs and Waldschmidt to make an informed choice between the two. They both seem to have very good hit tools, giving them a better chance to make it.
The question then becomes, of course, what would the Nats do with another outfielder? I’m willing to consider Montgomery as a clear “best player available” if he drops. But if you get into the second tier, and you have Tibbs, Waldschmidt, Yesavage, and maybe Christian Moore about equal (although Law hates on Moore), the first inclination isn’t going to be an outfielder. (That’s another concern I have about Griffin — many project him more in CF than at SS. As discussed above, the Nats are well over the limit of CF candidates.)
Most mocks seem to be pushing Montgomery and Kurtz well into the top 9, sadly but not surprisingly. I think at least one of the high school shortstops will be taken before #10. Some mocks have moved Tibbs into the top 9, but the consensus is that he will be still be on the board. The “best player available” strategy likely would argue for whoever is left between Griffin and Rainer. The safest pick likely would be either Tibbs or Waldschmitt. Moore would be a gamble, but the Nats have a lot of acquaintance with the Tennessee program and should have better intel than most.
But can we really envision Rizzo passing on a 6-5 pitcher (Yesavage)? The dude is straight out of central casting for a Rizzo pick. Mock consensus seems to be pushing him down to the 13-15 range, though.
In short, I haven’t a clue which direction the Nats will go, and neither do the prognosticators. All they can agree on is that the Nats are “at the mercy of the board.” One or two guys always drop. And Rizzo does love picking hotshots who drop.
And then the Braves will draft Tommy Tanks, who will hit more homers than anyone picked ahead of him.
KW
12 Jul 24 at 3:37 pm
McDaniel’s mock 3.0 has Kurtz dropping past the Nats all the way to #13, with the Nats taking Tibbs instead. Some mocks have had Kurtz as high as #4. I have a hard time seeing the Nats passing on him to take yet another outfielder. McDaniel has both Griffin and Rainer gone before pick 10.
KW
13 Jul 24 at 8:13 am
I’m publishing the last mock draft collection along with a prediction soon. I also listened to the BA podcast where they went deep, deep into it and will discuss on that post. Draft 7/14/24.
Todd Boss
13 Jul 24 at 1:54 pm