Re-Grades: 2055 Draft - Printable Version +- First Class Mogul (https://www.firstclassmogul.com) +-- Forum: General (https://www.firstclassmogul.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=1) +--- Forum: Draft Analysis (https://www.firstclassmogul.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=117) +---- Forum: Nokes Draft Reviews (https://www.firstclassmogul.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=113) +---- Thread: Re-Grades: 2055 Draft (/showthread.php?tid=38218)

Re-Grades: 2055 Draft - mattynokes - 07-24-2016 Original 2055 Grades So, what makes a good grade on a re-review? Is it whether the player became great or failed? Is it value at the spot you picked him? What about any other factors? I don’t believe you can simply say, “This guy turned out amazing! Great pick!” or act as if the GM made a horrible pick all because the prospect fails. Make no mistake, it will be a factor. But the risk/reward is a factor, too. Just because a player peaked out at 93+ doesn’t mean you made an excellent pick. If a player peaks out at 93+, then it’s no wonder why he looks and performs so well. If you were truly picking based off of best case scenario, then you’d be selecting 70’s peaks much sooner in the draft. I also won’t lambaste a selection just because the player failed. I remember when Rocky selected Pierre Lyon. It’s amazing that he didn’t develop even into just an average starter. He was primed to have an excellent career. But a series of random drops and lagging development killed him. On the same breath, there could be early decline. There’s just no way to predict this on Draft Day. The best you can do is select a good player and hope for a sweet 26 to 33 peak window. You could select a player that develops into the next Donovan Pace or Sean Vogel, but if he gets a crummy 25 to 27 peak window, he’ll never reach the accolades needed to become an all-time great. All said, there’s no way that a guy like Lyon wouldn’t have a worse re-grade, but he wouldn’t be looked at the same as the guy who I said would fail, and did fail. Lastly, since my Scouting File greatly changed since 2055, I’ve put all the players back through the projections and will be showing them as if these were used on Draft Day 2055. ---------- 01. :sdp2: SP Brett Wright Some saw him as a future dominant ace, but I questioned his dominance because of his lack of power. As it’s turned out, I think I was fairly correct on his analysis. He’s had bouts of very good seasons, but hasn’t been truly dominant and is more of someone you can expect to be in the mid 3’s ERA. Maybe some would say he was even worse than advertised, but I also have to give him credit for being a workhorse. We often criticize high endurance (and health), but last season was the first he ever had a significant injury and can almost always be counted on for at least 7 innings of work (6.9 IP/GS). Draft Day Grade: Draft Peak Vs Actual Peak: 93 to 92 Future Skills At Peak Rating: 90 Con, 71 Pow, 95 Mov Re-Grade: Peaked Skills: 95 Con, 73 Pow, 93 Mov 02. :nyy2: 2B Angel Fernandes To no surprise his fielding came just as advertised at second and third. Because of developing short of his draft day peak, his contact just did not develop like it was supposed to. He still turned out to be a fine player, but it’s his lack of good contact that kept him from becoming a truly dynamic bat. Draft Day Grade: Draft Peak Vs Actual Peak: 94 to 88 Future Skills At Peak Rating: 79 Con, 83 Pow, 82 Eye Re-Grade: Peaked Skills: 78 Con, 86 Pow, 83 Eye 03. :mia: SP Joaquin Regino I remember some people questioning his ability to develop into a dominant starter. I wasn’t sure if his control would get into the 90’s, but I felt even in the 80’s, his power and movement should be good enough to overcome average control for a starter. As it played out, his control developed very well and his other vitals developed pretty much as expected. Now he’s a two-time Cy Young Award winner and has made All-Star Games 4 out of the last 5 seasons. Draft Day Grade: Draft Peak Vs Actual Peak: 93 to 94 Future Skills At Peak Rating: 81 Con, 97 Pow, 97 Mov Re-Grade: Peaked Skills: 91 Con, 94 Pow, 97 Mov 04. LF John McNamee Ugh. How good he was going to be. Then he quickly dropped after peaking out at 90. He’s maintained his 86 overall for a couple seasons, so it appears to be a random Mogul screw job. However, he’s still been a rather productive player. Likely gone are his .800+ OPS seasons, but he’ll still get on-base at a good clip, steal some bases, and has finally seemed to get past the error-bug that plagued him early in his career. Draft Day Grade: Draft Peak Vs Actual Peak: 93 to 90 Future Skills At Peak Rating: 93 Con, 82 Pow, 92 Eye Re-Grade: Peak Skills: 93 Con, 75 Pow, 95 Eye 05. :bos2: LF Sam McCluskey Clearly I was wrong in saying Rocky shouldn’t have reached for him, he’s one of the league’s best players. He has that same build type as McNamee and Jonathon Woods. When those guys hit their develop, they are DAMN good. Great on-base guys, while they aren’t super fast, they do get some steals and are quite proficient at it. They also can defend all of the outfield (though they’re best suited for left). Still, as good as McCluskey has developed, he falls into that “No Shit You’re Good When You Peak At 94” category, so there was some risk there. But good risk and it paid off. Draft Day Grade: Draft Peak Vs Actual Peak: 86 to 94 Future Skills At Peak Rating: 97 Con, 82 Pow, 98 Eye Re-Grade: Peaked Skills: 99 Con, 78 Pow, 97 Eye 06. :kcr2: SS Travis Erwine I highly questioned Mike trading up and selecting him. As it turned out, he peaked on his next birthday while already having jumped before the draft. It didn’t help matters that he took a random drop shortly after being drafted (and naturally was never going to recover). It’s still a poor pick, but not completely a waste since Erwine has been a worthy cheap fringe starter option with his great defense. Plus if he hadn’t been victim to that drop, he might be an average starter. Draft Day Grade: Draft Peak Vs Actual Peak: 89 to 79 (Already Progressed on Draft Day) Future Skills At Peak Rating: 80 Con, 64 Pow, 93 Eye Re-Grade: Peaked Skills: 78 Con, 64 Pow, 90 Eye 07. :phi2: SP Todd Woolgrove I was fairly conservative on grading this pick, because I selected him for Philly. As it turned out, he developed into a very good pitcher and had it not been for the “in limbo” years for the Phillies, where inexplicable defense was deployed, he’d have a very nice career ERA to date. He’s shown he can be very good with a competent defense behind him. It looks as though early decline will limit his career, but when he’s done enough to acknowledge him as a very good pick. Draft Day Grade: Draft Peak Vs Actual Peak: 87 to 90 Future Skills At Peak Rating: 95 Con, 79 Pow, 93 Mov Re-Grade: Peaked Skills: 93 Con, 78 Pow, 95 Mov 08. :fla2: RP Diondre Jackson I didn’t like him much on Draft Day. I figured he was a future RP with his poor control and it looks like that’s where he’s best served. That or an ice cream stand, because he serves up home runs and walks like ice cream cones on the Fourth of July. Draft Day Grade: Draft Peak Vs Actual Peak: 93 to 87 Future Skills At Peak Rating: 67 Con, 90 Pow, 86 Mov Re-Grade: Peaked Skills: 70 Con, 84 Pow, 86 Mov 09. :min2: SP Mel Brown He’s an interesting one to look back on. I stated he had maybe even a higher ceiling than Woolgrove, but might have a tougher time reach it, because of lower control. As it turns out, I was fairly right. He’s fairly good and probably has the talent to stick with a sub-4 ERA, but he still isn’t great. Draft Day Grade: Draft Peak Vs Actual Peak: 90 to 93 Future Skills At Peak Rating: 78 Con, 83 Pow, 93 Mov Re-Grade: Peaked Skills: 82 Con, 78 Pow, 93 Mov