2007 Draft Class

questionmarkgrace · November 21, 2006

there is an article on the cubs website that says that we would lose our second round pick and sandwich picks to the nationals. Not sure if that includes the one we get back from the dodgers. But about that, the compensation rules are different this year. I think Pierre was a type "b" free agent and I'm not sure if we get a pick back from that. Beyond that, we re-signed all of the free agents that could have left. So I'm not sure what happens now. They changed the collective bargaining agreement and now I cant remember whats what. .

Mephistopheles · November 21, 2006

you don't lose sandwich picks. They are extra picks.

i believe they do it in order of the quality of the FA you lost, though i am not sure

questionmarkgrace · November 21, 2006

thats what I thought but it says it.

The Nationals will get the Cubs' second-round and sandwich picks in the 2007 First-Year Player Draft. They will not get Chicago's first-round pick because the Cubs finished in the bottom 15 of the Major League standings.

it is Muskat though

Transmogrified Tiger · November 21, 2006

thats what I thought but it says it.

The Nationals will get the Cubs' second-round and sandwich picks in the 2007 First-Year Player Draft. They will not get Chicago's first-round pick because the Cubs finished in the bottom 15 of the Major League standings.

it is Muskat though

That's exactly what Craig and kctigers said.

NorthsideAvenger · November 21, 2006

Don't forget the Cubs are gettin a pick for Pierre, so the Cubs are winners on both ends.

WrigleyField 22 · November 21, 2006

so excited dont mess this up

Bruno7481 · November 21, 2006

Brownlie was damaged goods, at least right now Brackman is nowhere near that.

Highlights:

- Hit 99 on the Cape
- Hit 101 with Team USA
- Sat 91-95 at NCSU scouts day
- Threw a good knucklecurve
- Hit 97 in the NCSU Fall Game

Anyways they made it sound as if his curve was very sharp.

I'm more concerned with the quality of the curve than him hitting mid to upper 90's.

craig · November 21, 2006

you don't lose sandwich picks. They are extra picks.

i believe they do it in order of the quality of the FA you lost, though i am not sure

I didn't know how to find finesse rules like this, but I did go back to the 2002 draft. Here is the sequence, with has the sandwich team, the team's 2001 wins and post-season success, and the player being compensated for.

Dodgers 86 Park

Cubs 88 Weathers

Indians 91 Juan Gonzalez (lost 1st round playoffs)

Braves 88 Karsay (lost 2nd round playoffs)

A's 102 Giambi (lost 2nd round playoffs)

Cubs (Rondell White)

A's Isrinhausen

Cub's Van Poppel

A's Damon

Giambi was clearly more highly rated than Weathers. So the sequence was not based simply on player rating.

It appears that for playoff teams, the farther you got the later you drafted. So post-season survival trumps regular-season record. (That's why the INdians, who lost in first round, drafted ahead of the Braves, even though Cleveland had a better regular-season record.) If you didn't make the playoffs, the sequence most likely is based on record rather than player ranking. (The Dodgers had a worse record than Cubs.)

I may be misreading this. Or, perhaps the rules have changed.

But, it looks to me like the first pick would go to the non-playoff team with the worst record. Regardless of how good the lost FA being compensated for is.

If so, unless I'm overlooking some A/B FA from Tampa, Pittsburgh, or KC, the Cubs are the beneficiaries. This could put the Cubs as the first pick of the sandwich round.

The prospect of going 4th and 31st, that's pretty appealing.

Way to go Pierre!

Again, given how long the sandwich round is likely to be, the positioning within that round is pretty important, especially in what projects as a premium draft. Cubs could get somebody very talented at 31.

CaliforniaRaisin · November 21, 2006

Brownlie was damaged goods, at least right now Brackman is nowhere near that.

Highlights:

- Hit 99 on the Cape
- Hit 101 with Team USA
- Sat 91-95 at NCSU scouts day
- Threw a good knucklecurve
- Hit 97 in the NCSU Fall Game

Anyways they made it sound as if his curve was very sharp.

I'm more concerned with the quality of the curve than him hitting mid to upper 90's.

No OUTLAW curve, though.

WrigleyField 22 · November 21, 2006

you don't lose sandwich picks. They are extra picks.

i believe they do it in order of the quality of the FA you lost, though i am not sure

I didn't know how to find finesse rules like this, but I did go back to the 2002 draft. Here is the sequence, with has the sandwich team, the team's 2001 wins and post-season success, and the player being compensated for.
Dodgers 86 Park
Cubs 88 Weathers
Indians 91 Juan Gonzalez (lost 1st round playoffs)
Braves 88 Karsay (lost 2nd round playoffs)
A's 102 Giambi (lost 2nd round playoffs)
Cubs (Rondell White)
A's Isrinhausen
Cub's Van Poppel
A's Damon

Giambi was clearly more highly rated than Weathers. So the sequence was not based simply on player rating.

It appears that for playoff teams, the farther you got the later you drafted. So post-season survival trumps regular-season record. (That's why the INdians, who lost in first round, drafted ahead of the Braves, even though Cleveland had a better regular-season record.) If you didn't make the playoffs, the sequence most likely is based on record rather than player ranking. (The Dodgers had a worse record than Cubs.)

I may be misreading this. Or, perhaps the rules have changed.

But, it looks to me like the first pick would go to the non-playoff team with the worst record. Regardless of how good the lost FA being compensated for is.

If so, unless I'm overlooking some A/B FA from Tampa, Pittsburgh, or KC, the Cubs are the beneficiaries. This could put the Cubs as the first pick of the sandwich round.

The prospect of going 4th and 31st, that's pretty appealing.

Way to go Pierre!

Again, given how long the sandwich round is likely to be, the positioning within that round is pretty important, especially in what projects as a premium draft. Cubs could get somebody very talented at 31.

2006 Draft

Dodgers 71 Dessens?

Orioles 74 Ryan

Giants 75 Eyre

D-Backs 77 Worrell?

Padres 82 (lost Fisrt Round) Hernandez

Marlins 83 Burnett

Phillies 88 Wagner

Braves 90 (lost First Round) Furcal

Indians 93 Howry

Red Sox 95 (lost First Round) Damon

Yankees 95 (lost First Round) Gordon?

Cardinals 100 Grudz/Morris?

Braves Farns?

Red Sox Mueller?

I filled in for the guys I knew, but it pretty much looks just like its based on straight record, though I think this was an all type A sandwich wasn't it? Didn't there used to be a separate sandwich for type C and type B didnt reward sandwich picks?

I'm so confused, but if it is by record, even if the type B's go after the type A's we should get the first, second, or third one.

WrigleyField 22 · November 21, 2006

Lookng at old draft trackers on MLB.com they have a Compensation A b/t 1st and 2nd and a Compensation C b/t 2nd and 3rd

Compensation used to be:

A- First Rounder and Comp A

B- Second Rounder

C- Comp C

2006 Didn't have any Comp C... 2005 had two, one of which was Blanco, who I remember was a C.

Although now I can't remember if the type A's get only a first rounder or also the compensation. Is it only a type B compensation?

If the A's and B's share a compensation you have to figure the A's go first.

I'm so confused.

I am confident it goes by strait record though, which is good.

the splendid splinter · November 21, 2006

We'll see what Wilken can do with these higher picks!!!

craig · November 21, 2006

2006 Draft
....
I filled in for the guys I knew, but it pretty much looks just like its based on straight record, though I think this was an all type A sandwich wasn't it? ....I'm so confused, but if it is by record, even if the type B's go after the type A's we should get the first, second, or third one.

Thanks. So, past history indicates that it is strictly record of the drafting team.

The inclusion of sandwich guys for Class B guys is totally new. It might be that all A's and B's are sandwiched together, in which case we could get pick #31.

However, I asked a friend about this and he thought he'd heard that the sandwich picks for A's will go first before the B's.

So, if we get the first B but follow the sandwich A's, that should probably be where, low 40's or so?

jjgman21 · November 24, 2006

thats what I thought but it says it.

The Nationals will get the Cubs' second-round and sandwich picks in the 2007 First-Year Player Draft. They will not get Chicago's first-round pick because the Cubs finished in the bottom 15 of the Major League standings.

it is Muskat though

That's exactly what Craig and kctigers said.

I'm confused. Craig and kc said the exact opposite at least as it pertains to the sandwich pick. that quip says the Cubs lose the sandwich pick, they both said the Cubs keep it.

NCCubFan · November 24, 2006

thats what I thought but it says it.

The Nationals will get the Cubs' second-round and sandwich picks in the 2007 First-Year Player Draft. They will not get Chicago's first-round pick because the Cubs finished in the bottom 15 of the Major League standings.

it is Muskat though

That's exactly what Craig and kctigers said.

I'm confused. Craig and kc said the exact opposite at least as it pertains to the sandwich pick. that quip says the Cubs lose the sandwich pick, they both said the Cubs keep it.

I think it means that Washington gains a sandwich pick, not that the Cubs lose one (although the wording isn't that clear). Sandwich picks are additional picks that are inserted between rounds, not existing picks taken from a team.

craig · November 24, 2006

Correct. Sandwich picks are given to teams, but they are nto taken away from anybody. They are just extra picks added to entitled teams, those being teams losing A and B free agents (assuming the free agents are comp eligible. If the team declines to offer arb, of course no comp picks happen).

So we give up our 2nd round pick for Soriano. Washington gets that 2nd round pick, plus they get a sandwich pick. But the sandwich is *not* from us.

The Cubs get a sandwich pick for Pierre. And they will keep that no matter what. Their first round pick and their sandwich pick are both protected, even if they sign Schmidt and Floyd and Lugo in addition to Soriano.

Vinestal · November 24, 2006

Correct. Sandwich picks are given to teams, but they are nto taken away from anybody. They are just extra picks added to entitled teams, those being teams losing A and B free agents (assuming the free agents are comp eligible. If the team declines to offer arb, of course no comp picks happen).

So we give up our 2nd round pick for Soriano. Washington gets that 2nd round pick, plus they get a sandwich pick. But the sandwich is *not* from us.

The Cubs get a sandwich pick for Pierre. And they will keep that no matter what. Their first round pick and their sandwich pick are both protected, even if they sign Schmidt and Floyd and Lugo in addition to Soriano.

Will we lose additional lower round picks for signing additional free agents?

SouthSideRyan · November 25, 2006

Correct. Sandwich picks are given to teams, but they are nto taken away from anybody. They are just extra picks added to entitled teams, those being teams losing A and B free agents (assuming the free agents are comp eligible. If the team declines to offer arb, of course no comp picks happen).

So we give up our 2nd round pick for Soriano. Washington gets that 2nd round pick, plus they get a sandwich pick. But the sandwich is *not* from us.

The Cubs get a sandwich pick for Pierre. And they will keep that no matter what. Their first round pick and their sandwich pick are both protected, even if they sign Schmidt and Floyd and Lugo in addition to Soriano.

Will we lose additional lower round picks for signing additional free agents?

Only if they're type As, and their former team offers them arbitration. And Muskat's wording was horrendous on that talk about sandwich picks, it definitely looks like she's saying it's the Cubs sandwich pick.

NCCubFan · November 25, 2006

Only if they're type As, and their former team offers them arbitration.

Or if they're signed before the deadline for offering arbitration, in which case it is assumed that their former team would have offered arbitration.

seattlecub · November 27, 2006

i believe they did away with the arbitration deadline, didn't they?

from mlb.com

Last year, the Astros did not offer arbitration to Clemens by Dec. 7, the deadline for clubs to offer arbitration to players on their roster who declared free agency, which meant Clemens could not re-sign with Houston until May 1. Had Houston offered Clemens arbitration, he could have accepted or rejected. In the former case, he would have been considered signed, and in the latter, the Astros would have only been able to negotiate with him until Jan. 8.

Those dates have been eliminated in the new agreement, which means Clemens can continue to negotiate with Houston or any other team he chooses without a deadline. The same is true for all free agents with regard to their 2006 teams,

Tedward · November 27, 2006

i believe they did away with the arbitration deadline, didn't they?

from mlb.com
Last year, the Astros did not offer arbitration to Clemens by Dec. 7, the deadline for clubs to offer arbitration to players on their roster who declared free agency, which meant Clemens could not re-sign with Houston until May 1. Had Houston offered Clemens arbitration, he could have accepted or rejected. In the former case, he would have been considered signed, and in the latter, the Astros would have only been able to negotiate with him until Jan. 8.

Those dates have been eliminated in the new agreement, which means Clemens can continue to negotiate with Houston or any other team he chooses without a deadline. The same is true for all free agents with regard to their 2006 teams,

Hmmn. I thought I remember seeing that they moved it up to December 1st.

NCCubFan · November 27, 2006

I knew the Jan. 8 deadline was eliminated; I'm not sure about offering arbitration. It does make sense, though, in light of the signings that have already taken place without waiting until after Dec. 7 to see if their former clubs offer them arbitration.

craig · November 27, 2006

i believe they did away with the arbitration deadline, didn't they?

No. According to ESPN, it's Dec. 7. But as your quote showed, they changed some of the implications of whether or not it's offered.

As your quote shows, the failure to offer arb no longer precludes a team from signing the guy as a FA. That's good for everybody. It just means that the player can't accept arb and force the team to accept an outside arbitrator's one-year salary. In past it was often tough; team and player want to stay in the mix, team doesn't want to get stuck with arb salary, but player still wants to explore the market. Now, team and player can stay engaged and get back together via free agency, after they both know what the market considers to be a fair price.

If you do offer arb, it still offers the player the choice to use an outside arbitrator to arbitrate salary offers. (A route which is almost never taken.)

As before, refusal to offer arb vetoes any team eligibility to receive compensation draft picks. (If the team isn't willing to pay the guy a supposedly fair, impartially arbitrated salary, why should they get compensation back for losing a guy they didn't really want anyway?)

As before, offering arb is required to get draft comp for guys signed after the arb deadline. (Anybody signed before the dealine, comp applies.).

However, unlike before the draft comp has changed. Before, a B like Pierre would cost the signing team a pick. Now, the team that loses a B still gets a pick, but it doesn't cost the signing team anything. That's advantageous because now B's can get signed on their merits, without having teams wait till after the arb day to find out if they can get the dude without losing a pick.

This also accelerates the free agent season. If it isn't going to cost you a pick, why not get to work and sign DeRosa or Matthews or Pierre in November? In past it made sense to wait till after December 7, but by removing that stall motive, the whole FA process is likely to get rolling faster. Which I think we've already seen this year.

I think that too is advantageous. Players can perhaps resolve their futures faster, and have more time to buy new houses or move families or whatever. Agents can get more of their work done earlier and not get it all jammed back into the Christmas season. GM's can get everything going faster, allowing more time to process decisions that depend on whether or not you actually get Soriano or DeRosa or pierre, etc.. And perhaps get their rosters established earlier so they have more time left for working on contract extensions (Barrett and Z this year, Lee last year, Aram year before that, Wood year before that.)

UK1679666180 · December 1, 2006

Ooo, they have a top 10 for 2008.

Prospect Plus now has the top 100 for '08. Hopefully it is more accurate than their top 300 HS'ers for '07.

Mephistopheles · December 3, 2006

gah my poor college ass cant afford that

but its so purdy. though pgcrosscheckers expensive stuff is supposed to be better.

when was the original 2007 300 you are referring to? If it is was before the summer of course it isnt going to be accurate compared to the end.

2007 Draft Class

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in

Member Statistics

Prospect News & Highlights

Recent News

Notes & Rumors

Recent Blogs