Dylan Davis, OF. DOB: 7/20/1993. B-R, T-R. 6'0", 200 lbs.
2013 College(Oregon St.): .335/.375/.502, 22 2B, 3 3B, 5 HR, 19 BB, 35 K, 257 AB.
2013 Cape Cod Leaugue: .317/.378/.567, 8 2B, 6 HR, 12 BB, 16 K, 104 AB.
2014 College(Oregon St.): .283/.333/.430, 7 HR, 21 BB, 31 K, 237 AB.
2014 Rookie AZL: .297/.341/.486, 7.3 BB%, 29.3 K%, 41 PA.
2014 Short Season: .200/.269/.341, 4 HR, 7.5 BB%, 24.7 K%, 93 PA.
After researching this post, I understand better why the Giants drafted Dylan Davis in the 3'rd round of the 2014 amateur draft. BTW, there was another similar player named Dylan J or DJ Davis drafted by the Toronto Blue Jays out of Cal State Fullerton. Anyway, Davis fits several descriptions of the type of player the Giants have been drafting in rounds 2-5: 1. College power hitter/corner player. 2. Great Cape Cod League performance. 3. Player whose stock slipped a bit in their draft year.
Davis had a breakout college season in 2013 followed by a very good summer at the Cape. His 2014 at OSU was not terrible, but it was not quite up to the expectations created by his 2013 season. The Giants got him signed and after a few games in Arizona, sent him to Salem-Keizer. His BA there was alarmingly low, but he did hit 4 HR in just 93 PA which is a rate of 25 in 600 PA.
Davis also pitched some in college and has a mid-90's FB and a sharp breaking slider. He is unpolished as a pitcher and gets a wild hair up his nose, walking about as many as he K's. Most draft analysts believe his best path to the majors is as an OF. He's strictly a corner guy, but has more than enough arm to play RF. He is on the stocky side with a simple upright stance and a quick stroke. His build, with relatively short arms that are large in the shoulders and biceps then telescope down, As well as his swing all remind me of Dan Uggla.
Davis could be assigned to either Augusta or San Jose next year. I'm going to guess San Jose. Ceiling is a corner OF with a great arm who can hit in the low-mid .200's with 25 HR power. Significant bust potential. Interesting guy to follow. 2015 will be a critical year for him to establish himself as a legitimate prospect.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I agree, he should be a very interesting follow. Yup, his path could go anywhere: boom, bust, or bullpen. I'm not convinced that his swing mechanics can keep up with more advancement, maybe he'll smooth stuff out. I'll be very curious to see where he's at in two years. Cheers.
ReplyDeleteDr. B, I know this is off topic but regarding the Scherzer deal don't you think it's a little insane how reportedly half of the deal is deferred so that Max will be making 15 mil. a year for 14 years? I mean talk about having an albatross contract on your books for maybe nearly a decade!
ReplyDeleteNot really. The cap is calculated by AAV or Annual Average Value. So, the cap hit each year will be $15M instead of $25M+ if he would have signed a 7 or 8 year deal. It is just club preference. The bad part is you will be paying him when he is not even in the league. However, you can make more moves under the cap and it is the same amount just spread out. Keeps more money in the bank to gain interest or use in investments.
DeleteNo matter how you cut it, the Scherzer deal is unlikely to be favorable to the Nationals over the course of the contract. He is an upgrade for this year, but a minimal one as they already had 5 solid starters. He does give some protection in the future for expected FA losses, but there are lots of less expensive ways to address those losses. Sounds like an aging owner who wants to go all in now and doesn't really care what happens down the road because he ain't gonna be around anyway.
DeleteAgree it sounds like an aging owner going all in now. I'm just surprised there wasn't a bigger uproar for a 14 year deal for a 30 year old player. I've heard of those few contracts where it's structured so that the player makes a few million for like 10+ years, but never heard of one this large.
DeleteI do not recall one this large either. Deferred payments were popular for awhile, then some teams like the D'Backs overdid it and got themselves into situations where their payments to players who were no longer on the team started squeezing the budget for active players and these types of deals became fairly rare. I hope this is not the start of a trend and I doubly hope the Giants do not allow themselves to get caught up in it.
DeleteI hope the Giants don't get caught up in it as well. The last thing we need is another Zito like contract hamstringing us for several years.
DeleteAlong the lines of tying up money, I'm curious if Dr B thinks that the impending payoff of the initial bonds to build the PacBell Park will change the way the Giants approach payroll? I seem to recall that they were twenty year bonds (could be wrong); if that is the case, they will be freeing up a lot of cash come 2021 and I could see where that begins to free things up for contracts that might be entered into.
ReplyDeleteAlso, while probably not the right venue, I'd love for Dr B to give us his All Homegrown 25 man (rules: all draftees, or current players, needs to pick guys capable of being in the show, and they have to be there in 2 years). Should be fun!
I heard it was going to be paid off in 2017. I believe from A. Baggarly.
DeleteI think the luxury tax will continue to be a problem. They may consider bursts in spending, but I doubt they will turn into Yankees or Dodgers.
DeleteI don't want them to either, It is more fun this way.
I think the windfall from the mortgage payoff is around $20 M which does not go very far, especially if you have to pay a luxury tax, so I agree, the luxury tax will continue to be a barrier to payroll increases, as it should be.
DeleteNot sure when the Giants weren't one of the BIG Spenders (top 10?), but that seems to be the best tract to win a WS. Only a couple of non-spenders have won, and the Yankees & Red Sox, big BIG Spenders, haven't failed entirely. As much as we might hate it, the boys down south will eventually buy a Ring, even with Mattingly. If they had Bochy, they would already have won. Maybe.
ReplyDeleteThe point is, the owners have money, fortunately. And they didn't invest it all with Bernie Madoff so we don't have a Met crisis. We did have a significant attendance drop in 2008 & 9, and it can happen again, so it's best they don't spend it all right now to try to win before they "ain't gonna be around anyway" as it was so well expressed above. Spending money is like digging a hole, you gotta know when to stop. Contracts like Sandoval's and Lester's and others that the Giants were reportedly proffering or contemplating don't come with guarantees and mostly come back to bite you. Who isn't a little worried about Cain's? And maybe Buster's?
Maybe you buy that guy for a year to put you over the top, but nobody is worth the money being thrown these days. And Lester didn't put Oakland over the top AND they were in front when they made the deal.
What will happen if The Giants lose San Jose? Nothing for a while, but it will bite down the road. Old fans die, new fans don't have ties. Things change. Barrys come and go. Hey, kids, the Yankees are coming to town, and they WILL be playing in San Jose, if and when it comes to that.
Don't begrudge the owners their money--it's theirs. They are providing a good product in a great park, and that's ALL you can ask. But, it everyone's right to complain!
I think I agree with most of what you just said there, anon. I was more than a little worried about Cain's and Buster's contracts and said so at the times. You can look it up.
DeleteOn average, big spending teams are going to get more postseason appearances and thus more chances to win. There are exceptions to the rule. I don't think you can be a bottom third spender and expect to win. I think mid-market teams that spend wisely can consistently do better than big spending teams that do so unwisely.
Does anybody know how it would affect the salary cap if the Giants were to sign Yoan Moncada when he is elgible to sign? Sounds like he is going to go for $30-40M but that would require a 100% penalty which would turn into $60-80M. He will most likely start in minor ball but I am curious if that money hits the cap.
ReplyDeleteNo hit on Luxury Tax for a Moncada sign, which is one reason why the Giants just might go for it. Downside is all the money would have to be paid out within 12 months and I'm not sure there is enough in the WS windfall + RDF to cover the one year cost.
DeleteAnd Baer (I think it was Baer) was on KNBR the other day saying that they are not sure they will actually go for Moncada. Buying a kid that young for that kind of money, even if he does end up being everything advertised, would not necessarily be a good investment. He would need to be in the minors for a few years and then still would be a FA going into he age 28 (or so) season, so some other team would get his prime years.
DeleteI tend to agree. Buying a FA BASICALLY does not increase a team's equity. Only drafting well increases a teams equity.
There has been a trend if these types. Kieschnick, Domginguez, Mac, and Horan. Parker has developed that way too, though I thought he would be more of a contact guy initially.
ReplyDeleteLooks like they will all reach at least the AAAA fringe level, not bad results considering the odds. Hopefully one of these newer guys can be an impact bat. It just takes one for this strategy to pay off.
The thing with Moncanda is you still have to sign him to a contract. He still gets to go through arb, and if he is a Trout level talent then that is going to get pricey fast. His bargain years aren't really a bargain because of his bonus and the tax. He's going to end up costing superstar money if he is indeed one, or be a very expensive bust.
ReplyDeleteWrong on signing Moncada to a contract. If he is signed as an international FA, once the bonus is paid, the Giants have 5 years to put him on the 40 man roster then 3 option years then 3 pre-arbitration years then 3 arbitration years, just like any other prospect in the system. It's the upfront money in the bonus and penalty that all has to be paid within 1 year that is the problem.
DeleteOf course, as soon as he makes the 25 man roster, the arbitration/FA clock starts ticking.
DeleteI've watched video of Davis hitting, and
ReplyDeleteDavis pitching.He looks way better pitching.He's a strong kid.The swing looks robotic.On the mound it looks easier .