1 hour ago, DirtySox said:

I wonder if the Sox trying to get an extra pick ship has sailed at this point?

The pirates price is either too high, they changed course, or they’re getting ready to take the best offer.

One of many questions that we get an answer to in the next five days!

9 hours ago, bmags said:

I don't know really the answer here, which makes me lean to 'cut a deal', but there's no obvious deal. I'd be happiest with Roch, and am just sanguine on Emerson. For a hs shortstop, i'd prefer some louder athletic tools.

I am just gonna hope it works out.

They're going to get a pretty substantial deal with whoever they take. I see this being in the $9.5-$9.75 million range regardless with at least $1.5 million in savings at #1.

4 hours ago, GreenSox said:

The general consensus here is that the Sox will take Roch; those on here who seem to have some connections seem to think it's likely Roch. Law says that the scouts want Emerson and the FO wants Lackey and Roch is a distant 3rd.
Like 2 years ago, when my only request was to not take Smith, the bloggers and those "in the know" would say "don't worry; they're not taking a pitcher." Of course, no one had much of an idea as the candidates all had questions.
But last year, everyone nailed the Carlson pick.
I am just excited to find out who it will be.

I still lean Cholowsky for lots of reasons but I wouldn't be surprised by Enerson. I'd be shocked if they took Vahn Lackey.

2 hours ago, Y2Jimmy0 said:

I'd be shocked if they took Vahn Lackey.

The past couple of days are the first we’ve heard the FO being linked to Lackey by any writers from what I recall.

Have you heard anything yourself first or second hand to corroborate?

I can't see the Sox passing on both Roch and Emerson to grab a catcher. Lackey is talented, but drafting him would be absolutely overthinking the entire process.

1 hour ago, CWSpalehoseCWS said:

I can't see the Sox passing on both Roch and Emerson to grab a catcher. Lackey is talented, but drafting him would be absolutely overthinking the entire process.

Not if Lackey has a better hit / power / athleticism profile and would excel in a move to the outfield.

Two of the three propositions there are generally believed to be true.

I just need to make a pact with myself to not talk about the draft until Friday. 🤣

40 minutes ago, hi8is said:

Not if Lackey has a better hit / power / athleticism profile and would excel in a move to the outfield.

Two of the three propositions there are generally believed to be true.

I just need to make a pact with myself to not talk about the draft until Friday. 🤣

Well, I get that, but I highly doubt a catcher would ever beat out two top tier SS options for athleticism. There's a reason good organizations focus on SS profiles - they can literally be moved anywhere. Drafting a C to simply move him to the OF feels like poor scouting or drafting for need. If you take Lackey at 1.1 he better damn well stay at C or his value plummets IMO because you're banking on the bat to carry him. I'd rather take a chance on Emerson's potential if they aren't taking Roch.

4 hours ago, CWSpalehoseCWS said:

Well, I get that, but I highly doubt a catcher would ever beat out two top tier SS options for athleticism. There's a reason good organizations focus on SS profiles - they can literally be moved anywhere. Drafting a C to simply move him to the OF feels like poor scouting or drafting for need. If you take Lackey at 1.1 he better damn well stay at C or his value plummets IMO because you're banking on the bat to carry him. I'd rather take a chance on Emerson's potential if they aren't taking Roch.

There isn't one profile that has suggested Roch could or should play CF.

Lackey beats him in pretty much every measure in terms of athleticism.

The outfield idea is 100% not destroying his knees and preserving his bat in the lineup.

And those tools would make him a plus fielder at any number of positions, especially his elite arm strength.

If you don't/can't keep Mune, Braden perhaps moves to LF with Lackey in RF/CF, Colson SS Vargas 3B Antonacci 2B Bonemer 1B and a rotating DH.

6 hours ago, CWSpalehoseCWS said:

I can't see the Sox passing on both Roch and Emerson to grab a catcher. Lackey is talented, but drafting him would be absolutely overthinking the entire process.

Lol why?

I keep reading these comments. Lackey was better than Roch this year. Taking him makes a ton of sense. Maxed out prospects should be avoided at 1-1.

Emerson is a skills based high school player which also seems really risky. Skills don't always translate level to level, but tools do.

Lackey is by far the best athlete between the three so not sure why you're saying catchers can't be more athletic than the short stops. It's undeniable that Lackey is the best athlete of the three.

Edited 4 hours ago4 hr by Look at Ray Ray Run

I'd take the following players over Emerson and Roch:

Lackey
Burress
Flora
Bell
Reese

For someone really far out there, I like Strosnider's tools better, and while I probably wouldn't take him over them because I'm a coward I do think he has a higher pro ceiling and I wouldn't be surprised at all to see him have a better career. So I like him more.

1 hour ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

I'd take the following players over Emerson and Roch:

Lackey
Burress
Flora
Bell
Reese

For someone really far out there, I like Strosnider's tools better, and while I probably wouldn't take him over them because I'm a coward I do think he has a higher pro ceiling and I wouldn't be surprised at all to see him have a better career. So I like him more.

yikes

2 minutes ago, Squirmin' for Yermin said:

yikes

I know everyone likes to agree with each other in the scouting space, but there's a reason baseball has such volatility in the draft. This year is wide open to me.

2 hours ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

I'd take the following players over Emerson and Roch:

Lackey
Burress
Flora
Bell
Reese

For someone really far out there, I like Strosnider's tools better, and while I probably wouldn't take him over them because I'm a coward I do think he has a higher pro ceiling and I wouldn't be surprised at all to see him have a better career. So I like him more.

Lmao

2 hours ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

I'd take the following players over Emerson and Roch:

Lackey
Burress
Flora
Bell
Reese

For someone really far out there, I like Strosnider's tools better, and while I probably wouldn't take him over them because I'm a coward I do think he has a higher pro ceiling and I wouldn't be surprised at all to see him have a better career. So I like him more.

I respect how you take a different approach than the herd. It really adds to the discussion. I am very hit tool forward, so of those listed I like Bell. Lackey has a huge upside, but his performance against velocity scares me. I think Burress has a real shot to be Wyatt Langford-lite, but as a short R/R dead pull hitting potential corner with considerable bust potential, I think he's rich for 1/1. I wish I liked Flora more. His K numbers in a mid-major conference are honestly confusing to me. I am not a Reese fan cuz of defensive questions. But I agree, they could all be solid pros.

I am fine with any of the choices - including a surprise Flora selection at max discount.

59 minutes ago, Timmy U said:

I respect how you take a different approach than the herd. It really adds to the discussion. I am very hit tool forward, so of those listed I like Bell. Lackey has a huge upside, but his performance against velocity scares me. I think Burress has a real shot to be Wyatt Langford-lite, but as a short R/R dead pull hitting potential corner with considerable bust potential, I think he's rich for 1/1. I wish I liked Flora more. His K numbers in a mid-major conference are honestly confusing to me. I am not a Reese fan cuz of defensive questions. But I agree, they could all be solid pros.

If Burress was 5'10, id feel much better. The size is of concern, no doubt about it.