2010 Cubs Picks & Signings Thread

[Outshined_One]

BA lists Rhoderick's signing bonus as $110,000. What in the heck was the holdup with them announcing this deal? :-s

[toonsterwu]

So do any of these guys fit into a Top 30 Cubs Prospect List? I would imagine that Wells might be somewhere in there.

 

I might put Wells in my top 20. I am that excited/intrigued with him. Harman ... I might give him a back end top 30 slot. Will have to ponder that. I think he could move fast, if given the opportunity.

[craig]

Couple Q's/thoughts:

 

1. What does the average team spend on a draft?

 

2. I'm thinking the cubs will come in somewhere in the $4-5 million range, probably above $4.5. Middle of the pack, more or less I'm guessing? (I just popped the picks into excel, put in $70K for college signings after the first 10 rounds, and put in something on the order of $110-150 for the normal HS/JC picks after the first ten. Gave $300 for Reed (I have no idea...), $200 for Harman, and somewhere between $110-200 for about 11 other guys. Summed up to $4.961. Also put in $500 for Szcur, since they offered it at least even if he declines to take it.

 

3. That's a lot of guessing. Maybe they paid Reed $0.5, maybe $0.15, I don't know. Maybe they paid Harmon $110, maybe $310, pure guesswork. Geiger, Reed, Smith, Beeler, we don't know. But I'd be surprised if we finished much below $4.5, or much above $5.

 

Which I'm guessing would be fairly middle-of-the-pack spending? Or would $4.5-5 be a little below or a little above average?

 

4. I haven't tracked all the links. Is the list provided by the Cubs or mlb? Or is there an outside chance that later we'll find out that Danny Winkler or Jacob Rogers actually did sign but we didn't hear about it, ala Nick Struck last summer?

[Outshined_One]

1. What does the average team spend on a draft?

 

I think it's been something in the $5m-$6m range in the past, although this year's numbers might be skewed. Focusing on publicly disclosed bonuses, teams on the high end spent a bit more than usual (Nationals, Red Sox, Blue Jays, and Pirates all at or above $10m), while there were a number of teams that spent a lot less than usual (Brewers at $2m; Twins, Padres, Cubs, White Sox, Braves, Marlins, Mets, and Phillies all around or below $4m). Since Wilken took over, they've spent 19th most on draft bonuses. This year will probably slide them down a bit.

 

While those bonus figures don't include guys who received below a certain signing bonus amount (can't remember the exact numbers), I think you can figure those numbers cancel each other out team by team when comparing those teams. For example, while the Brewers signed more players than the Cubs (34 versus 29), it would be a really safe bet to say those extra five players will not cause the Brewers to spend more on this year's draft than the Cubs.

 

4. I haven't tracked all the links. Is the list provided by the Cubs or mlb? Or is there an outside chance that later we'll find out that Danny Winkler or Jacob Rogers actually did sign but we didn't hear about it, ala Nick Struck last summer?

 

The Cubs provided the list of deadline signings. There's a remote possibility someone signed without it being reported, but considering Carrie Muskat was the one who reported on the signings of Rhoderick, Harman, and Smith, I sincerely doubt it.

[craig]

thanks much.

 

"...a number of teams that spent a lot less than usual (Brewers at $2m; Twins, Padres, Cubs, White Sox, Braves, Marlins, Mets, and Phillies all around or below $4m)."

 

That's sourced from BA, or Muskat, or mlb, or a poster's tabulation, or what? I'm wondering in part whether my guesstimate is significantly wrong, and if so why or who? (I'm probably a chunk of a million over by counting Szcur as $500K instead of $150 or whatever...) But maybe Reed and Harman are straight $110 guys, too, beats me.

[Outshined_One]

thanks much.

 

"...a number of teams that spent a lot less than usual (Brewers at $2m; Twins, Padres, Cubs, White Sox, Braves, Marlins, Mets, and Phillies all around or below $4m)."

 

That's sourced from BA, or Muskat, or mlb, or a poster's tabulation, or what? I'm wondering in part whether my guesstimate is significantly wrong, and if so why or who? (I'm probably a chunk of a million over by counting Szcur as $500K instead of $150 or whatever...) But maybe Reed and Harman are straight $110 guys, too, beats me.

 

Andy Seiler was tabulating bonus numbers last night. From the looks of it, he was basically adding up the numbers on BA's advanced draft database, which lists the various disclosed signing bonuses. His number for the Cubs didn't include Szczur, for what it's worth.

[Guest]

BA doesn't have bonuses listed for guys like Geiger and Reed and they list any bonus $100,000 or higher. It's been a while now and they still haven't added bonus figures for those guys who signed a month ago so I don't think they got significant 100k+ overslot bonuses.

 

Also, I don't think it's fair to compare the Cubs to the Brewers, Diamondbacks and Padres total draft expenses since those teams didn't sign their first rounders.

[Wrigley Rat]

It doesn't sound like Wells' deal is too great - We would have to put him on the 40-man roster in 2014 to prevent him from being taken in the Rule 5 Draft anyway (right?), so this would just move him up one year. If it turns out that he doesn't look to be that good of a prospect, he can be released rather than take up a 40-man spot anyway.

[craig]

.... I'm going to seriously start to question Ricketts' motives.......

 

I think it's fair to judge that Ricketts is not radically or noticably redirecting the way the Cubs pursue success. No indication that there is a major commitment to build via draft spending. Nor via international investment. Nor via a larger big-league budget. Nor via a dramatic change in leadership from Hendry/Fleita (Hendry has been GM for 7 or 8 years, but he and Fleita have overseen the draft/development system for almost 15 years.) Nor with pushing/driving a significant usage of high-level statistical analysis.

 

Ricketts seems like a nice upbeat optimistic fan who spent a zillion just to get the team, and perhaps doesn't have a bunch left over to steinbrennerize it either in FA or in draft. He also seems pretty delagatory. Hendry and Fleita have their jobs, Ricketts seems thus far to be fine with empowering and entrusting them to do their jobs, for better or for worse.

 

My impression is that Ricketts is OK with working more from an upper-mid-market standpoint than to spend as if it's a true megamarket. Washington can go full-bore for draft; Ricketts seems kind of spread-it-around.

 

Personally I think the big-league budget was awfully high, and I'm thinking that Ricketts is partially rebounding and pulling back from the massive contract commitments. If you packed the house and went to the playoffs, you make enough to justify the $140+ payroll. But when you're in 23rd place, and next winter you aren't likely to have season-ticket holders killing each other to buy tickets to see this team next year, I'm guessing he probably needs to have the big-league payroll come back to the pack. A budget that makes sense when you're realistically a playoff probable and a realistic WS possible is different from a budget that makes sense given our current personnel. And given how many of our current personnel are contract locked, it's not budget-feasible to buy yourself into a playoff probable.

 

It's been suggested that the Lilly savings should have been spend on draft picks. I like the idea. But it might reasonably be thought that rather than freeing up discretionary money for spending, that Ricketts basically viewed that as simply reducing substantial losses. Cub the losses from $20 mill to $18 mill, or keep it at $20 mill and superslot DeJesus, Stites, and Santiago? I have no idea, but that's my guess.

[davearm2]

Seems to me that it's too early to draw any meaningful conclusions about what is in store for the Cubs under Ricketts.

 

Who they drafted, and who they did and didn't sign may have nothing to do with Ricketts, any budgetary constraints he may or may not have imposed, or whatever organizational philosophy he plans to instill.

 

And what the future plan is for the bigleague payroll is just speculative right now.

[craig]

It doesn't sound like Wells' deal is too great - We would have to put him on the 40-man roster in 2014 to prevent him from being taken in the Rule 5 Draft anyway (right?), so this would just move him up one year. If it turns out that he doesn't look to be that good of a prospect, he can be released rather than take up a 40-man spot anyway.

 

Not correct. It reduces club control by three years, not one.

 

1. HS picks get five years before they need to be rostered, college picks four. That was a change in 06; previously it had been 4 and 3, but now it's 5 and 4.

 

2. It's not when you sign, it's when you play. Having signed on Aug 16, Wells is not going to play in any official minor league games this 2010. So his options clock will begin in 2011. So without the contract clause, it would have been 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, then roster winter of 15, and have his first option year in 2016, when he would be 23.

 

3. I'm not sure I'm remembering right, or what the details are on Wells's alleged contract. From the Bryant Daily: "But it also includes an unusual provision that guarantees that in 2013, Wells will be included on the Cubs' 40-man roster. That means he'll go to spring training with the Major League club that spring with a chance to make the 25-man roster." Not sure what "in 2013" means. It certainly reads like he'll be rostered during all of the 2013 season, and spend spring training of 2013 with the Cubs. That would mean only two non-rostered years. But, perhaps it means he'll be rostered *after* 2013, he'll be on the roster in 2013 in front of the Rule 5 draft, and will actually spend the 2014 spring training roster with the cubs. That would be trimming only two rather than three years off of his pre-option clock.

 

Which would certainly be no big deal. Most of my lifetime HS picks had 4 years before Rule 5. I've hardly noticed the difference since it's been expanded to 5. I doubt it would be a big deal for Wells to drop it to 3. But to drop it to two, when probably next year will be all short-season action anyway, that would be pretty fast.

[davell]

Just curious, but since I've started to see some comments about Ricketts maybe overextending himself, what were the terms of him buying the Cubs? Anyone know? I know that it cost 900 mill and I think he put a substantial amount down to make it happen, because if I remember correctly, Utay may have had a slightly higher bid. Anyway, is this an actual concern already? That we're overextended and will be going cheap? They are spending money already on and around the stadium, correct?

 

I've had issues with what's been done in year one as far as the farm has gone, but I didn't actually figure it was because we don't have the money to do anything.

[Outshined_One]

Just curious, but since I've started to see some comments about Ricketts maybe overextending himself, what were the terms of him buying the Cubs? Anyone know? I know that it cost 900 mill and I think he put a substantial amount down to make it happen, because if I remember correctly, Utay may have had a slightly higher bid. Anyway, is this an actual concern already? That we're overextended and will be going cheap? They are spending money already on and around the stadium, correct?

 

I've had issues with what's been done in year one as far as the farm has gone, but I didn't actually figure it was because we don't have the money to do anything.

 

Here are some details that might help.

 

The Ricketts family borrowed $450 million from three major banks: JP Morgan, Bank of America and Citicorp. The rate of the financing will be between 5 and 6 percent annually; that means that the Cubs’ new owners must come up with $25-30 million per year just to pay financing on the loan.

 

Biz of Baseball also had some useful information.

 

According to the September Chicago Tribune story, “Sources have pegged the Cubs’ 2007 cash flow at $31 million, which implies a debt ceiling of $465 million.” Could the Ricketts family and Utay have pulled together a staggering $400 million or more in cash? For one, the Ricketts family sold 34 million shares of TD Ameritrade Holding Corp. (NASDAQ:AMTD) stock in Feb., which was founded by Joe Ricketts, Thomas Ricketts father. Total value of the stock sale? $403 million. The reported total equity being available for the deal by the Ricketts is said to be $450 million. When factoring in Zell’s retention of some ownership equity, and the lowered offering price, the structure of the deal will have some cushion under the Debt Service ceiling.

 

So, it seems about half of the deal was financed with borrowed money, which isn't uncommon. The Ricketts family has debt to pay down, but whether or not they can afford it is unknown at this time.

[craig]

Harman: $150 plus tuition for his senior year at Clemson.

 

http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/article/20100817/SPORTS/100817020/Harman-signs-with-the-Chicago-Cubs

 

I wonder if he might not be something of a Chris Rusin light. More HR-oriented than Rusin and probably doesn't have as good a breaking ball, but that general type of polished good-control lefty. Perhaps Lilly might be another comp, soft-tossing HR-fodder, but enough finesse control to make it work? That's assuming his finesse and control could be at the Lilly level, which is pretty extraordinary.

 

Of all the soft-tossing finesse want-to-have-control want-to-end-up-like-Lilly lefties that get drafted, not many end up like Lilly. Just like a decade ago every slim 80's-velocity lefty might become Glavine and every slim 80's-velocity righty might become Maddux.

Edited August 18, 2010 by craig

[Wrigley Rat]

It doesn't sound like Wells' deal is too great - We would have to put him on the 40-man roster in 2014 to prevent him from being taken in the Rule 5 Draft anyway (right?), so this would just move him up one year. If it turns out that he doesn't look to be that good of a prospect, he can be released rather than take up a 40-man spot anyway.

 

Not correct. It reduces club control by three years, not one.

 

1. HS picks get five years before they need to be rostered, college picks four. That was a change in 06; previously it had been 4 and 3, but now it's 5 and 4.

 

2. It's not when you sign, it's when you play. Having signed on Aug 16, Wells is not going to play in any official minor league games this 2010. So his options clock will begin in 2011. So without the contract clause, it would have been 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, then roster winter of 15, and have his first option year in 2016, when he would be 23.

 

3. I'm not sure I'm remembering right, or what the details are on Wells's alleged contract. From the Bryant Daily: "But it also includes an unusual provision that guarantees that in 2013, Wells will be included on the Cubs' 40-man roster. That means he'll go to spring training with the Major League club that spring with a chance to make the 25-man roster." Not sure what "in 2013" means. It certainly reads like he'll be rostered during all of the 2013 season, and spend spring training of 2013 with the Cubs. That would mean only two non-rostered years. But, perhaps it means he'll be rostered *after* 2013, he'll be on the roster in 2013 in front of the Rule 5 draft, and will actually spend the 2014 spring training roster with the cubs. That would be trimming only two rather than three years off of his pre-option clock.

 

Which would certainly be no big deal. Most of my lifetime HS picks had 4 years before Rule 5. I've hardly noticed the difference since it's been expanded to 5. I doubt it would be a big deal for Wells to drop it to 3. But to drop it to two, when probably next year will be all short-season action anyway, that would be pretty fast.

Thanks Craig - I would imagine that could mean Wells starts at Peoria next year so he get a full season of work (I would expect a rough year for him). He also should be part of Instructionals.

[craig]

Thanks Craig - I would imagine that could mean Wells starts at Peoria next year so he get a full season of work (I would expect a rough year for him). He also should be part of Instructionals.

 

My guess is that he'll do XST and Boise next year, unless he's really impressive in camp. Remember, he's only 17. Pretty uncommon to start an 18-year-old in Peoria, although of course there are exceptions and perhaps he'll be one. (Perhaps the fact they included a clause like that might be a reflection that they scout him as being pretty polished.)

 

Actually, I'm also guessing that the special 2013 roster thing is *after* 2013, such that it really wouldn't take effect until the 2014 season. I may be wrong. But if he has three pre-option years plus the three option years besides, I wouldn't expect that length of club control would not necessitate any unusual rushing.

 

I don't imagine they're trying to disrupt what would be normal development.

[Guest]

Craig, I'm pretty sure the CBA now starts the option clock right when he signs rather than when he debuts which is why guys like Vitters played right after signing on 8/15. I remembered it being a big deal when it came up. I'll try to hunt out links later.

[Guest]

Really bummed we weren't able to get Brooks in the fold.

[craig]

Craig, I'm pretty sure the CBA now starts the option clock right when he signs rather than when he debuts which is why guys like Vitters played right after signing on 8/15. I remembered it being a big deal when it came up. I'll try to hunt out links later.

 

Interesting, if true. If you can find a link to that, I'd be really interesting in seeing that.

[toonsterwu]

Really bummed we weren't able to get Brooks in the fold.

 

I am really curious what happened with Brooks. He doesn't seem like the break the bank type based off a huge year in his senior campaign ... very curious

 

_____________

 

I could see Harman as somewhat of a cross between Rusin and Raley perhaps, and I could see Harman move up the ladder fast, before having to figure out if he's a pen arm or if he can start.

 

_____________

 

http://www.todaysthv.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=113667&catid=56

 

Interview Ben Wells gave. Said he was going to instructs first, and then made a brief mark about going to A ball next spring. Not sure if that was a guess on his part, or a promise the Cubs made. Standard comments about going in and working hard an so forth.

[Outshined_One]

This article is a rather fascinating read on the money handed out in this year's draft. Towards the end of the article, the author posted a chart on signing bonuses handed out in the first five rounds. I think it'll help put the Cubs' draft into context compared to how other teams spent.

 

Keeping in mind the number does not include Szczur's $500k bonus if he chooses baseball over football, the Cubs ranked 25th in MLB in signing bonuses in the first five rounds. Should Szczur commit, the Cubs would vault to 21st. As things stand now, all of the teams behind the Cubs signed 4 or less draft picks in the first five rounds (and the Mariners could still sign James Paxton).

 

I'm guessing the Cubs will be in the bottom third in draft spending when all is said and done. Yuck.

[Guest]

40th rounder Brian Smith signed for $75,000 bonus.

 

http://m.torontosun.com/15046651.1?fullscreen#news

[davell]

Cubs spent 4,727,100 total on the 2010 draft, according to BA. Up slightly from a tad over 4 last season. Their total spending ranked 19th this past draft.

[Guest]

Additional bonuses via BA:

 

LHP Eric Jokisch (11) - $125,000

RHP Austin Reed (12) - $150,000

RHP Colin Richardson (14) - $100,000

RHP Ryan Hartman (16) - $125,000

3B Dustin Geieger (24) - $150,000

RHP Dallas Beeler (41) - $150,000

 

That's in addition to:

 

RHP Hayden Simpson (1) - $1,060,000

OF Reggie Golden (2) - $720,000

C Micah Gibbs (3) - $350,000

LHP Hunter Ackerman (4) - $216,000

OF Matt Szczur (5) - $100,000*

RHP Ben Wells (7) - $530,000

LHP Cam Greathouse (8) - $125,000

RHP Kevin Rhoderick (9) - $110,000

RHP Aaron Kurcz (10) - $125,000

RHP Dustin Fitzgerald (19) - $110,000

LHP Casey Harman (29) - $150,000

LHP Brian Smith (40) - $75,000

[Guest]

Navin (Pasadena, CA): Ben Wells got 3rd round money from the Cubs. Your scouting report made him sound like a late bloomer but is he worth the over slot?

 

Jim Callis: Remember that the slots are bogus to begin with. In the next day or two, I'll do a Draft Blog post that shows how out of touch the slots are with reality. The short version: the top 50 bonuses are 37 percent higher than the top 50 slots . . . Back to Wells: He was a late bloomer, and one scout told me he easily could have been a third-round pick if he had been scouted heavily enough. So I like that investment a lot.

 

Slider (Vancouver): Could you see a team like the Pirates spending 12-15 million dollars on the draft next season considering it could be their last oppurtunity to exploit the current system before hard slots come in?

 

Jim Callis: Yes, I could. Spending will jump up another notch or two next summer, for precisely that reason. The Pirates won't be the only candidates, either.

 

http://www.baseballamerica.com/chat/?1282748719