Neither scout or adviser (prep players do not have "agents" but "advisers"), so please let me leave it at that.
The scouting community have seen the HS players since last June (and before that), at numerous showcases, tourneys, etc. through October. During the winter, the area scouts, crosscheckers, etc., have observed indoor workouts. And, of course, they've (incl. directors and above) observed the players during their HS season to see their development. The boys are well vetted, so not attending a pre-draft workout will not harm a player's standing.
Point: there's an interesting and wide delta between mock drafts and reality, especially after 1-10. All organizations hold their opinions and discussions very close to the vest, and although a few national writers get the 1-1 to 1-10 right, after that it's a crapshoot. Why? A majority of the clubs do NOT speak about their player perceptions, and without a sampling from all clubs, mock draft errors abound.
I don't know the Nats' intentions are in this draft, but I can tell you they're gentlemen, professional, and work their asses off to get this as right as they can.
Oh, of course -- we appreciate the insight, either way. Sounded like you were a bit more privy to the local workouts (I didn't see any articles, but there very well may have been one). The only added value for a workout would be some facetime with top FO brass (Rizzo, Kline, etc...).
Totally agree on org values differing across the board. The only reason I share mocks is to get an understanding of players & general slots. After the top guys, we usually share PG/BA/etc... scouting reports on the guys drafted.
