Matt Szczur Forgoes NFL to Remain With Cubs

[Guancous]

When was the last time the Cubs had 3 intriguing outfield prospects (Jackson, Szczur, Golden)?

[Guest]

When was the last time the Cubs had 3 intriguing outfield prospects (Jackson, Szczur, Golden)?

 

Last year with Colvin, Jackson, and Burke.

[KingCubsFan]

I don't think Shane Victorino is a good comp for Szczur.

Why? More speed?

[Guest]

I don't think Shane Victorino is a good comp for Szczur.

Why? More speed?

 

Yeah. It's too big a part of his game.

[jersey cubs fan]

I don't think Shane Victorino is a good comp for Szczur.

Why? More speed?

 

Yeah. It's too big a part of his game.

 

Are you saying it is more a part of Szcur's game or Victorino's?

[davell]

This makes last year's draft look better now anyway, as Szczur is now the highest paid out bonus from last year's draft for the Cubs. I'm very happy about this, but this should be EXPECTED to be done by the Cubs. We need to do alot more to the farm this year, but this is a decent start at least. I hope this doesn't count into the budget of this year's spending though.

[Guest]

I was referring to Szczur.

[jersey cubs fan]

I was referring to Szczur.

 

Is it not a huge part of Victorino's game? I don't get your comment.

[shnsajax]

This is a great move and now gives us two legit CF's who can hit, hit for power, draw walks, and play plus Defense.

 

Where do you think he will start next season high-A? That might be a little high.

[davell]

I think he'll be in Peoria next year. He's probably too raw to try to push higher than that.

[craig]

This makes last year's draft look better now anyway, as Szczur is now the highest paid out bonus from last year's draft for the Cubs. I'm very happy about this, but this should be EXPECTED to be done by the Cubs. We need to do alot more to the farm this year, but this is a decent start at least. I hope this doesn't count into the budget of this year's spending though.

 

I would think the Cubs draft spending from last year is now certainly in the top half, maybe the top dozen.

 

And I totally believe Wilken when he says Simpson was a BPA pick. The fact that he signed cheap doesn't reflect a lack of willingness to spend or a lack of aggression by the Cubs.

 

If DeJesus had been willing to accept their substantial overslot offer, their spending would have been even higher.

 

Golden was overslot, Szczur and Wells both large super slots. Kurcz, Reed, Richardson, hartman, Fitzgeral, Geiger, Harman, and Beeler were also all overslots.

 

Great news that Caesar signed, and I hope he works out well. It could end up being a terrific draft.

[davell]

Counting Szczur's bonus, it puts our draft last year at 6.5 mill. Putting it right at the major league average spent last year.

 

I don't remember hearing anything about an offer to DeJesus, did you hear what they offered him or something?

 

Bottom line as far as Szczur goes, I like it alot and really hope that this is just the beginning of the Cubs commitment to the system.

[craig]

...

I don't remember hearing anything about an offer to DeJesus, did you hear what they offered him or something?

.....

 

No. But money is part of the scout's job. Whatever faults the Cub scouting staff may have, they are not idiots.

 

Everybody knows that after the first couple of rounds, the normal "slot" for college picks is significantly lower than for most HS picks. At least for HS picks who are college material and who have any sincere interest in college. Yes, some limited guy like Blair Springfield are the exception,but that is indeed the exception.

 

So basically any time you draft a HS kid after the 3rd round, no scout boss will do that unless one of the following is true:

1. You know the guy really wants to go pro, and thus might sign around slot.

2. You know the guy doesn't really like school at all and really doesn't want to go to college, and thus might sign around slot.

3. The player has already indicated, for whatever reason, that he'll sign for slot.

4. If none of the above are true, and usually none are, then you draft the player only if you like him enough to pay overslot. That is the majority situation for HS prospects who might otherwise go in rounds 5-10. It's why not many HS guys are drafted in that area, and it's one of the reasons why rounds 5-10 are dominated by college picks and superslots.

 

Over the last 8 Cub drafts, how many American HS guys have they both drafted and signed between rounds 5-10?

2010: Wells, major superslot. Missed on DeJesus

2009: Springfield, willing to sign for slot, had academic problems.

2008: None

2007: None

2006: Cliff Anderson (overslot); 11th round Huseby super-duper slot

2005: Scott Taylor, overslot and not that smart and schooly

2004: Adrian Ortiz (didn't sign), and Mitch Atkins (mild overslot, not that schooly)

 

That's 7 HS guys in 7 years, of which two didn't sign; only one (Springfield) signed for true slot; only three others (Atkins, Taylor, and Anderson) required only modest overslots to sign. There just aren't that many guys in that area who are drafted and sign for no more than a modest overslot.

 

My point is, there just aren't that many HS guys taken in that part of the draft. If you're good and promising enough as a HS kid to get picked in the 6th round, then you must be good enough to move up into the high-round high-dollars later on, if you develop. It's not really a great business decision to sign for slot. So unless you just love baseball and want to be going pro ASAP; or have family needs; or just aren't really academically oriented and don't want to be in college; it just doesn't really make great business sense to sign for slot.

 

Of course there are HS players who are academically oriented who still do get drafted in rounds 5-10; but it's my assumption that in those cases the team understands it will need to pay what college-capable 5-10th round type guys get paid, which is well over the slot for equal-round college picks. The college-oriented prospect is a class of it's own, and gets paid at it's own rate. Slot isn't it.

 

Therefore I suspect that the Cubs knew in advance that deJesus was college committed and wouldn't sign for slot. But they took him anyway knowing they'd be willing to superslot. Slot is $180K, guy says he wants $600K, you figure that guys often come down once actually drafted so that you've got a good shot at him for $350K.

 

How high of an overslot they offered I have no idea. But I think it's almost inconceivable that they didn't offer overslot. It just wasn't superslot enough for him to bite.

[davell]

Yeah, i was curious if you knew. The only thing I remember reading was that the Cubs misjudged his college commitment. But, that doesn't tell us what they considered him either: A slot guy(probably not) an overslot guy(probable) or a superslot guy(doubtful, since he didn't appear on any top 100 lists or anything close to that from what I can tell)

[craig]

Counting Szczur's bonus, it puts our draft last year at 6.5 mill. Putting it right at the major league average spent last year.

....

 

By BA's accounting, $6.5 would be our highest draft spending probably since Brownlie. They have the last five years (from most recent backwards) as: 4.0, 5.5, 6.1, 5.0, 2.8. (Obviously they have some formula for counting that did not include all of Samardz's cash.) I just browsed through some of the other teams, as listed by BA, from 2009 back to 2005:

Cardinals: all around 5.0, max of 5.6.

Atlanta: 8.1 in 2006 when they had 4 extra bonus picks, but otherwise max of 5.1

Boston: They are clearly signature spenders, and have really taken that direction over the last three seasons. $10.5 in 08, with Kelley and Westmoreland, and they dished out $7.1 in 09. Prior to 08, they weren't big spenders unless they happened to have extra comp picks.

New York: Neither the Yankees nor the Mets have been regular big spenders, although the Yankees did pay a lot to Brackman that one year.

Los Angeles: Dodgers have never spent more than $5, Angles only when they had extra picks, same with Giants.

 

Anyway, in looking at various teams, it seems that the only notable super-spender over the last three years has been: Boston. And that just for the recent several years, it's not a long-standing habit.

 

Otherwise, teams are pretty consistently under $6 unless one of the following applies:

1. They have extra comp picks.

 

2. They have a real high pick that costs more. (When you're drafting Strassburg or Upton or top picks, then of course you spend more.)

 

An interesting observation, in browsing: often some of the biggest markets and best teams have had the most compensation picks. I suppose to get comp picks, you need to have players who are good enough that other teams want them. And you need to be willing to offer arb, which is more difficult when you're on a tighter budget. Hendry has been very avoidant of offering arb.

 

Anyway, if the Cubs are up to a $6.5 kind of spending budget even without having had a pricey 1st rounder or any comp picks, that's pretty high. If Ricketts is telling Wilken he'll get more, that could potentially put the Cubs perhaps in the upper five in terms of aggressiveness. (To spend more to sign extra comp picks, or to spend more to sign a top-five pick isn't really being aggressive.)

 

Of course, the flip might be that Wilken isn't really getting more to be more aggressive. It could simply be that the budget will go higher because we're picking higher. If we pay slot in the first round, that will add more than a million relative to what we've paid in either for the last two first rounds.

[davell]

Craig, while that's true, I'm going to think that since the word "significant" was what was used, it'll be more than just adding the slot values to account for the higher pick. Also remember that the slot value differential between the 9th pick and 15th(last year) is only around 500K anyway. We signed Simpson for 500K under slot last year.

[Guest]

Craig, I'm only going off memory here but I believe Kansas City and Pittsburgh have joined Boston the last few seasons as the top spenders (and not just because of their high 1st round picks).

[JeffH]

Can we start referring to Szczur as "The Emperor"?

[Guest]

Craig, I'm only going off memory here but I believe Kansas City and Pittsburgh have joined Boston the last few seasons as the top spenders (and not just because of their high 1st round picks).

Washington (because of their high picks)

[Guest]

Can we start referring to Szczur as "The Emperor"?

Depends on how he performs!

[Tedward]

Dale (Calvert City KY)

 

 

Is Matt Szczur a big time baseball prospect, now that he will be solely focused on the sport? What is his ceiling?

 

Klaw (1:41 PM)

 

 

Every area guy I talked to about him this spring called him a 4th/5th outfielder with plus speed and outstanding makeup but limited baseball tools.

[craig]

Craig, I'm only going off memory here but I believe Kansas City and Pittsburgh have joined Boston the last few seasons as the top spenders (and not just because of their high 1st round picks).

 

You're probably right. I don't have this drafts numbers, because I'm going off of my 2010 prospects book. But it has KC at only $6.7 for 2009, which seems explainable strictly with high pick. 2008 they were at $11.1, but that's $6 for Hosmer and another $1 for their other 1st round pick. So spending $4 after the first round isn't much diffeent from what the cubs hae been doing. And from 05-07, KC was always in the $6's, pretty easy to reach given a top-5 pick every year. But, certainly being willing to pay Hosmer $6, their budget didn't stop them.

 

Pittsburgh, they didn't get over $6 until 2008 ($9.8, Alvarez $6.3) and 2009 ($8.9). In 09 they gave out two 7-figure superslots to guys after the 2nd round.

 

So clearly their new management seems to be ready and willing to superslot, that's probably their niche to beat the competition.

 

In any event, it doesn't seem like there are all that many teams who are way more aggressive in terms of superslotting guys that the Cubs. Other than the handful, most of the teams who outspend us do so by virtue of having high top picks or extra high picks.

 

Dave, I realize that that the #9 slot isn't a million higher than the #14 slot. I'm just saying that since he didn't pay slot last year, doing so this year will raise the ticket by a million right there.

[questionmarkgrace]

Dale (Calvert City KY)

 

 

Is Matt Szczur a big time baseball prospect, now that he will be solely focused on the sport? What is his ceiling?

 

Klaw (1:41 PM)

 

 

Every area guy I talked to about him this spring called him a 4th/5th outfielder with plus speed and outstanding makeup but limited baseball tools.

 

this was the vibe I got from Szczur too. I look forward to seeing if all the hype is justified. in limited at bats in the minors he didnt do anything to hurt himself.

[toonsterwu]

I like Szczur and am excited that he signed with the Cubs. I'm also excited that the Cubs ponied up. That said ... I do wonder if the hype is getting a bit too much. The image I get when I ponder some of the positive reports on Szczur is ... essentially a slightly more athletic Brandon Guyer. That's a very intriguing asset to have, but I see some folks plopping him down as a top 3-5 guy in the system right now, and I guess I just don't have that level of SNTS as it relates to Szczur just yet.

[KingCubsFan]

Dale (Calvert City KY)

 

 

Is Matt Szczur a big time baseball prospect, now that he will be solely focused on the sport? What is his ceiling?

 

Klaw (1:41 PM)

 

 

Every area guy I talked to about him this spring called him a 4th/5th outfielder with plus speed and outstanding makeup but limited baseball tools.

Has there ever been a player in our system that Keith Law liked?