Dodgers Rumored to Have Deal to Send Top Prospect for $3 Million in IFA Money; Cubs Yet to Finalize Biggest IFA Deals

Hope wasn’t a 10th round talent so we can stop there. The Cubs needed a 1st baseman in the worst way and they paid a premium price. It’s what good teams like the Dodgers do to the smartest guys in the room running less successful organizations. 

10 hours ago, CubinNY said:

Hope wasn’t a 10th round talent so we can stop there. The Cubs needed a 1st baseman in the worst way and they paid a premium price. It’s what good teams like the Dodgers do to the smartest guys in the room running less successful organizations. 

Well, to be pedantic, no one has called him a tenth round talent. I have pointed out where he was drafted (11th round) and his slot value but for reason and cause. 

Frist, you're right, he's not an 11th round talent either. But that doesn't change the fact that every team had ample opportunity to pick him - every team essentially passed on him at least ten times, a few a handful more than that. This include the Dodgers. No team was clawing over any other to target him as a must have.

Secondly, he signed for $400,000. To put that in comparison, the Cubs fifth round selection in 2023 was Michael Carico, who signed for $400,000, which was under the slot value by a few thousand dollars. The Cubs paid him like a fifth round pick. They didn't have to float second round money or anything. 

In context, one year later the Cubs, in the same round (11th) selected another toolsy teenager who plays OF named Eli Lovach, He signed for $650,000, which was $250.000 more than Hope. 

No one, no one thought Zyhir Hope was a top-100 draft prospect in the summer of 2023 let alone a top-100 prospect in all of baseball. Between draft day and trade day, he had a whopping 43 professional PA's. That's in no way shape or form to change that outlook. He was a toolsy teenager who was a lottery ticket to hit. It's the right kind of gamble to take, but it's also a lottery ticket that almost every team buys and very, very few cash out.  

Did the Dodgers end up with a prospect who is seemingly pointing up? Absolutely! I think if you asked the Dodgers brain trust and they answered honestly, they'd tell you they've been very lucky that Hope is trending towards that 95% or better outcome. They'd probably say that he had tools they liked but never expected this outcome. I don't think that makes them any smarter than the Cubs who took the initial leap on him. 

Just on the discussion of age/ranking as well, I kind of want to highlight two players on the BP rankings and where/why I think there's a bias towards younger players with less data. The two players I've selected are fairly similar - they were drafted in the same range, both came directly from the college ranks, and even have some of the same questions/flaws within their scouting. Below, I'll look specifically at their offensive output, but I'll add context too. 

Player A - drafted in 2023
High-A: 197 wRC+
Double-A : 120 wRC+
Double-A: 142 wRC+
Triple-A: 146 wRC+

Player B - drafted in 2024
Low-A: 219 wRC+
High-A: 160 wRC+
Double-A: 122 wRC+

Now, looking at the two players, Player A hit better at High-A and basically the same in his first cup of coffee in Double-A. Player B does have eyepopping numbers in Low-A, but Player A outhit him at a better level so we can assume he'd have done similar or better. Both have some similar question marks about defense - so this is not a case where one of these is a glove-maestro and the other is a butcher. But BP, when ranking prospects, placed Player B a bit higher than Player A. It's enough spots that it's pretty pedantic, and I think arguing over a handful of slots is silliness, but I think this also highlights the bias towards lack of data. And yes, there's personal preference here, and you can say some of this is projection and ceiling and etc, but that's also what I'm getting at here.

If you haven't been able to guess yet this is Matt Shaw (drafted 13th overall) and Cam Smith (drafted 14th overall). BP has Smith at #20 and Shaw at #25. I think that's a pretty insignificant difference, but what exactly has Cam Smith done to be ranked higher? Nothing, really. Maybe you think his ceiling is higher, and whatever, that's a personal thing - but I think part of that is directly tied with lack of information. We have no idea how Smith will be truly attacked, if he can hit good sweepers, if his flatter than normal bat path is going to be an issue, or will need tweaked...but we hand ring more over Shaw because we have more to hand ring over (data). Shaw has a funky stance and a big leg kick. He didn't hit sweepers great at Triple-A in limited samples. But if we're being honest, Shaw did everything you would have wanted. He posted wonderful offense, made progress in limiting the chase and free-swing and I think if Cam Smith posted wRC+'s in Triple-A at the end of next season, that's like a 95% outcome for his season.

I think it's important to highlight this as well - last year, BP, had Matt Shaw ranked #21.

I bring this rant up to remind us that this rings true for young prospects around the board. Youth accentuates ceiling because we can dream more and fill in the data-gaps with dreams of what might come. With more data, we can dig and pick a guy apart more and more. Remember how high we had Rojas a year ago? He kind of didn't have a huge season and now many have soured. So maybe take this into account when we worry about losing a  Zyhir Hope, as much as we do as we worry about losing Cam Smith. I'm guilty of it myself sometimes. We all need these reminders.

30 minutes ago, 1908_Cubs said:

Just on the discussion of age/ranking as well, I kind of want to highlight two players on the BP rankings and where/why I think there's a bias towards younger players with less data. The two players I've selected are fairly similar - they were drafted in the same range, both came directly from the college ranks, and even have some of the same questions/flaws within their scouting. Below, I'll look specifically at their offensive output, but I'll add context too. 

Player A - drafted in 2023
High-A: 197 wRC+
Double-A : 120 wRC+
Double-A: 142 wRC+
Triple-A: 146 wRC+

Player B - drafted in 2024
Low-A: 219 wRC+
High-A: 160 wRC+
Double-A: 122 wRC+

 

Now, looking at the two players, Player A hit better at High-A and basically the same in his first cup of coffee in Double-A. Player B does have eyepopping numbers in Low-A, but Player A outhit him at a better level so we can assume he'd have done similar or better. Both have some similar question marks about defense - so this is not a case where one of these is a glove-maestro and the other is a butcher. But BP, when ranking prospects, placed Player B a bit higher than Player A. It's enough spots that it's pretty pedantic, and I think arguing over a handful of slots is silliness, but I think this also highlights the bias towards lack of data. And yes, there's personal preference here, and you can say some of this is projection and ceiling and etc, but that's also what I'm getting at here.

If you haven't been able to guess yet this is Matt Shaw (drafted 13th overall) and Cam Smith (drafted 14th overall). BP has Smith at #20 and Shaw at #25. I think that's a pretty insignificant difference, but what exactly has Cam Smith done to be ranked higher? Nothing, really. Maybe you think his ceiling is higher, and whatever, that's a personal thing - but I think part of that is directly tied with lack of information. We have no idea how Smith will be truly attacked, if he can hit good sweepers, if his flatter than normal bat path is going to be an issue, or will need tweaked...but we hand ring more over Shaw because we have more to hand ring over (data). Shaw has a funky stance and a big leg kick. He didn't hit sweepers great at Triple-A in limited samples. But if we're being honest, Shaw did everything you would have wanted. He posted wonderful offense, made progress in limiting the chase and free-swing and I think if Cam Smith posted wRC+'s in Triple-A at the end of next season, that's like a 95% outcome for his season.

I think it's important to highlight this as well - last year, BP, had Matt Shaw ranked #21.

I bring this rant up to remind us that this rings true for young prospects around the board. Youth accentuates ceiling because we can dream more and fill in the data-gaps with dreams of what might come. With more data, we can dig and pick a guy apart more and more. Remember how high we had Rojas a year ago? He kind of didn't have a huge season and now many have soured. So maybe take this into account when we worry about losing a  Zyhir Hope, as much as we do as we worry about losing Cam Smith. I'm guilty of it myself sometimes. We all need these reminders.

Thanks, this goes a long towards displaying that BP has a good deal of subjective-ness built into the rankings.  Had the trade been the other way I'm almost certain Hope and Ferris, as Cubs' prospects. Would not have been given the benefit of the doubt in same manner.  It's the Dodgers so they must be good.