• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

WF Baseball Off-season Thread

no way you devise this system starting from scratch — what a mess

gotta end the three-year requirement — perhaps better for colleges but very player-unfriendly
 
I think the number of guys that forego the draft directly out of high school and then wish they could leave college for the MLB after only one year is very, very small. So in that sense, the three year requirement isn’t really that damaging.

What’s worse is that MLB teams can get away with paying out of college eligibility draftees basically nothing, which could be easily fixed without changing the 3 year requirement.
 
regardless of how many players it affects, what's the legitimate justification for the rule?
 
JuiceCrewAllStar said:
regardless of how many players it affects, what's the legitimate justification for the rule?
Click to expand...
I would assume rules are part of the collective bargaining between players and owners. The benefits to owners are pretty obvious, and I assume what you're getting at. It seems to me that players unions are often a little less favorable to prospective talent with the goal of protecting the current members of the union over future members. I could be way off. Just trying to think through a way to a different outcome.
 
Deacfreak07 said:
I would assume rules are part of the collective bargaining between players and owners. The benefits to owners are pretty obvious, and I assume what you're getting at. It seems to me that players unions are often a little less favorable to prospective talent with the goal of protecting the current members of the union over future members. I could be way off. Just trying to think through a way to a different outcome.
Click to expand...
Feels like this is the struck balance from a CBA perspective for most of the leagues that have a type of requirement
 
For example, there doesn't seem to be much political will within the NBA CBA to allow 18 year olds to be drafted.
 
and they're all player-unfriendly to the benefit of the owners who want to others to pay for player development
 
JuiceCrewAllStar said:
and they're all player-unfriendly to the benefit of the owners who want to others to pay for player development
Click to expand...
I don't disagree. I also think that the Jake Taylors of the world are against increasing young prospective talent into the system because they are the ones who move out of the way to make room on rosters. I don't have a strong opinion on whether or not that's right or wrong, but it is a factor for a player's union where longer tenured players likely have a bigger voice. I can't imagine pro sports not being a fairly suspicious and back-stabby work environment.
 
JuiceCrewAllStar said:
and they're all player-unfriendly to the benefit of the owners who want to others to pay for player development
Click to expand...

20 year old washed up pros don’t do anybody any good. Both sides benefit in different ways. The leagues have figured out systems that generally work and just need a little tweaking from time to time.
 
PhDeac said:
20 year old washed up pros don’t do anybody any good. Both sides benefit in different ways. The leagues have figured out systems that generally work and just need a little tweaking from time to time.
Click to expand...
disagree

the euro soccer system isn't perfect, but at least the teams are paying for player development and there is more incentive to treat players well than the minor league system that pays guys $20k a year
 
With HS players able to go straight to the G League or Overtime Elite, there are developmental opportunities for elite HS basketball players who have no interest in college. Also, with NIL now, the HS basketball players that would be lottery picks are going to get paid well for their one year in college. There are NIL money bags for college basketball players that will never sniff the NBA. Given all of that, don't see a problem with the NBA draft rules.

Back to baseball:

Would love an update from Connor or anyone else covering WF sports on Nick Kurtz. Heading into WF CWS run, Kurtz had been a Team USA Invite was slated to play for the Harwich Mariners in the Cape League. After his injury surfaced, Kurtz opted out of the Team USA invite, and now, Kurtz is no longer on the Harwich roster. Did he have surgery after the CWS or is he just sitting out? Is he expected to be 100% when classes start in August?
 
IAppreciateIt said:
mlb.com released their 2024 top 20: https://www.mlb.com/news/2024-mlb-draft-mock

burns is first, kurtz sixth. no hartle.

looks like BA released a top 100 but i don't have a subscription -- kurtz is #1 though. eta: also looks like burns is 9th and king is 17th.
Click to expand...
So we basically have at least two projected top 5 picks for 2024, and King/Hartle could also move up there.

Pretty damn strong - let's get an OF and get focused up for Omaha next year.
 
Baseball teams never bat their best hitter 4th anymore. Kurtz will hit 3rd (or maybe even 2nd).

Would guess Seaver King will leadoff. At this point, its not clear who is going to be in the lineup besides, Kurtz, King and Houston. The OF and DH are unsettled; would expect Tate Ballestro to play either OF or DH and sometimes catch; Chris Katz could have a similar role. It appears Cameron Gill will catch, but WF may find another option out of the portal. Winnay could be in the lineup at 3rd if King plays second. Hawke could be play second base if King plays 3rd. With so many moving parts, impossible to settle on a lineup right now. Would expect the lineup to be flux for the first part of the season. As previously noted, in 2022, WF had a good year, and the lineup was constantly juggled until the last half of the season.
 
I've seen Ballestero getting some hype, but I'm not expecting much. I'm sure he'll be useful since he's so versatile, but his ostensibly solid numbers at St. John's (.912 OPS) are pretty hollow. In conference games, his OPS was only .725 against really bad competition (average Big East team is worse than our typical midweek opponent). He played 35 ABs in the Cape this year and had a .629 OPS before getting cut (honestly, those numbers are probably a good sign relative to what he did at St. John's -- decent plate discipline as well).

Granted, you never know how guys translate as they increase their competition and Ballestero was a big recruit so you'd think he has some projectable tools, but that aside, I think the data we have suggest he'll be a sub-.700 OPS guy in the ACC.
 
Last edited:
See $ details out now on Keener and Lee...both signed under a little. Still nothing on any level that I see for Hawke, Johnson and Bennett.

3 (84): Seth Keener, RHP, Wake Forest -- $800,000 (Pick value: $833,900)

6 (170): Bennett Lee, C, Wake Forest -- $297,500 (Pick value: $342,400)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top