2024 MLB Draft: Cleveland Guardians Face Tough Decision with No. 1 Pick Amid Strong College Talent

New York, New York, USA United States of America
Cleveland Guardians face tough decision with No. 1 pick in 2024 MLB Draft
ESPN MLB Insider Kiley McDaniel provides predictions and rankings
Mock draft predicts order of player selection
Strong group of college players contending for first pick
2024 MLB Draft: Cleveland Guardians Face Tough Decision with No. 1 Pick Amid Strong College Talent

In the 2024 MLB draft, the Cleveland Guardians face a difficult decision with the No. 1 pick as a strong group of college players is in contention to be picked first. The draft starts on Sunday and will project how the first round could play out during this weekend with mock draft 3.0. The intrigue begins at the top, as the Cleveland Guardians have a challenging decision with the No. 1 pick in a draft featuring a strong group of college players in contention to be picked first. The Cincinnati Reds and Colorado Rockies follow with picks No. 2 and No. 3 respectively.

Kiley McDaniel, an ESPN MLB Insider, covers MLB prospects, the MLB Draft and more including trades and free agency. He has worked for four MLB teams. In his mock draft 3.0, he predicts how the players will come off the board while his rankings are in order of how he would pick the players.

The 2024 MLB draft class is considered to be weaker up top and through the next few rounds than a typical draft class. Philadelphia and Atlanta are mentioned as teams that tried to shave a few million with their first pick in previous years without success. This year, it's suggested that it's a poor year to try this strategy due to the lack of high school position players with promising hit tools and the drop off in college pitching after the top two guys.

The final 2024 MLB Draft top-100 prospect ranking by Keith Law, a senior baseball writer for The Athletic, has been released. This is his last major update to the Big Board before the draft and he hopes that as you peruse this list, it will be apparent why it's considered a bad year for MLB drafting. He also notes that there are some interesting high school arms but they will likely sneak into the back of the first round and most will be gone before the second round.

The ranking is based on how good each prospect is, not a prediction of where they will be drafted. It includes present tools and skills, projection on their abilities and physical gifts as well. The list does not consider signability or access to all of the information teams have including medical information which won't become public until after the draft.

Some notable names in the ranking include Chase Burns, Charlie Condon, Ryan Waldschmidt, Michael Wade, Icon Sportswire and Isaiah Vazquez. Keith Law is a former special assistant to the general manager for the Toronto Blue Jays and has covered baseball since 2006.

The Athletic offers all-access to exclusive stories. Subscribers can get in-depth coverage of their favorite players, teams, leagues and clubs. Keith Law is also available on Twitter @keithlaw.



Confidence

85%

Doubts
  • The article mentions that Philadelphia and Atlanta tried to shave a few million with their first pick in previous years without success, but it does not provide any evidence or specific examples.
  • The article states that it's suggested that it's a poor year to try this strategy due to the lack of high school position players with promising hit tools and the drop off in college pitching after the top two guys, but no sources are cited.

Sources

100%

  • Unique Points
    • Vance Honeycutt is a potential Gold Glove center fielder.
    • Honeycutt has the capability to hit 20 homers in a season.
    • He can steal 20 bases in a season.
  • Accuracy
    No Contradictions at Time Of Publication
  • Deception (100%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication
  • Fallacies (100%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication
  • Bias (100%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication
  • Site Conflicts Of Interest (100%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication
  • Author Conflicts Of Interest (100%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication

95%

  • Unique Points
    None Found At Time Of Publication
  • Accuracy
    No Contradictions at Time Of Publication
  • Deception (100%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication
  • Fallacies (100%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication
  • Bias (100%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication
  • Site Conflicts Of Interest (100%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication
  • Author Conflicts Of Interest (100%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication

95%

  • Unique Points
    None Found At Time Of Publication
  • Accuracy
    No Contradictions at Time Of Publication
  • Deception (100%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication
  • Fallacies (100%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication
  • Bias (100%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication
  • Site Conflicts Of Interest (100%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication
  • Author Conflicts Of Interest (100%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication