What type of players do you want in the system?

[Wrigley Rat]

I think the players you draft, sign, and trade for ought to match your philosophy of team payroll. Here is my Top 10 List for engineering a winning ballclub (sorry it's long):

(1) Since the Cubs are a large market team with a large payroll, we can afford to sign other team's free agents to somewhat large contracts. We can also make trades for players in their arbitration years whose teams' can't afford them.

(2) The Cubs brass need to take personal feelings out of contract negotiations and try their best to sign players who are in the primes of their careers or younger. We "reward" too many fan favorites with bad contracts past their prime years.

(3) Contracts need to be slotted better. For example, It's OK for your cleanup hitter to make $10 million per year, but your long reliever can't be much over minimum. Making poor choices in free agency leads to salary slots not matching up, which leads to under-qualified players in important positions.

(4) I believe that three starting pitchers should be "near-ace" quality, and the other two should be pre-arbitration pitchers with the possibility of becoming an ace. Those that don't meet expectations by their second arbitration year should be traded away to someone who sees their importance as a cheapish innings-eater.

(5) I believe that the bullpen needs an ace closer (I know a lot of people disagree), as well as three reliable veterans (one of which can be the closer if needed) and 1-2 reliable youngsters. The closer's salary should not exceed the top five closer salaries in baseball. The veterans should not get longer than two-year contracts.

(6) I believe that six hitters in the regular lineup should be paid well, but that every other position player needs to be traded away before their second arbitration year, or accept lower than market salary (like Koyie Hill).

(7) Every position player should have a competent backup on the bench or at Iowa in case of injury.

(8) Practice the "Rule of Two." A GM needs to pay a free agent based on their last TWO years of service, not just their most recent season. If a player has had one good year in the past two, their price should be cheaper than someone who has had two solid seasons in a row.

(9) High-priced contracts need to end in a staggered way. Every year, a big contract or two should come off the books, allowing the team to invest in different areas of need. The Cubs have gone several years without many significant contracts coming off the books and that has handcuffed the team.

(10) When trying to sign free agents, negotiate with several at once early in free agency. Let it be known publicly that you are negotiating with each free agent. Be completely willing to sign the first one who accepts your contract parameters.

- Even with all that being said, plan for 10-20% "waste salary." This can include bad contracts, replacement players for long-term injured players, and players signed slightly over planned slotting.

- To answer the question of this thread:

(1) Draft and sign the best players available with an emphasis on pitching and power potential.

(2) Trade minor leaguers away when their value is highest (Chris Archer, Robinson Chirinos, Brandon Guyer) and don't look back. Some will come back to bite you, but if the players you got back in return have value, then you've done a good job. Don't trade the players you believe in most, but have legitimate reasons for believing in them!

(3) The AAA club should be filled with potential backups for the major league club. If the players you've developed are ready to perform, then they should play in Iowa, but if they still need more time, a former major leaguer should take their roster spot at Iowa and be ready in case of injury.

(4) Collect major league-ready pitchers who can be shuttled between Iowa and Chicago and can be used in trades. When they are over-performing in AAA, trade them while they're hot, assuming that one pitcher is as good as another. The Cubs have been good at this in recent years!

[Wrigley Rat]

5. I'm very desirous of some productive-power middle-lineup guys. But I do think that being a good hitter is essential to having productive power. If I think a prospect doesn't have the bat speed or the gift to make some contact, I don't care how far he hits batting practice or HS HR's. I think if a good scout sees that a Harvey just doesn't have the tools to hit, I don't care how much raw power he has. I would prioritize the "hitting" tool over the "power tool", because the latter is worthless without the former. And the number of HR's is a function of frequency of solid contact as well as of raw power when the contact is made.

I like this Craig. I don't think I would have completely agreed before watch Harvey and Dopirak fizzle out, but now that makes great sense!

[Outshined_One]

 

In total, 39 high school first basemen have been drafted in the first 100 picks from 1984 to 1999. Just one of them--Derrek Lee--achieved stardom. The results of the second round are particularly grisly--of the 16 first basemen drafted in the second round, the most valuable proved to be the immortal Tim Hyers. Let's put it this way: Chris Weinke was one of the data points.

 

I'm not necessarily arguing the point he's trying to make here, but I find it odd that he used 1999 as his cutoff, considering that Adrian Gonzalez was drafted first overall in 2000.

 

the study was done during the 2004-05 offseason, so he probably used 1999 as the cutoff because players drafted from 2000 onward probably hadn't reached a point where you could evaluate how they turned out. if there is a more recent study that's available online, i'm not aware of it.

 

I'm also curious if the study looked at players who were exclusively drafted as 1B, or if it also included guys who were 1B/LF types. I also find it interesting how those numbers are basically the opposite of college first basemen drafted in the first 100 picks. I still stand by Vogelbach if his bat is legit and he can lose enough weight to not have it be a major issue in his prime.

 

Here's a related line of thought...

 

What does everyone think of the Cubs taking a high school bat with their first round pick this year? I don't think Bubba Starling will be available or signable, but let's go with 3B/OF Travis Harrison, a big power guy with good athleticism, defense, and a well-regarded bat.

 

Assuming there's not much difference ratings-wise between Harrison and the second tier college hitting and pitching, would you like to see the Cubs take someone like Harrison?

[davell]

Harrison is a potential bady body type himself. But he does kill the ball. My thing is this: I like Harrison quite a bit. But, if one of Purke, Cole, Gray, possibly Jungmann, Daniel Norris, or Archie Bradley fall to us(definitely likely at least one makes it down there) I'm going to have a very hard time taking ANY hitter not named Rendon(top choice) or possibly Springer over anyone but Gray, Cole, or Purke.

 

I'm looking at high achool bats in the 2nd and 3rd myself. There looks to be quite a few guys that have the ability to be 1st round talents that are going to fall due to the amount of talent in the draft anyway. Give me the BPA in the 1st, which likely will be a pitcher, then it's going to be easier to address the power issue in the next couple of rounds.

[javy knows my name]

Harrison is a potential bady body type himself. But he does kill the ball. My thing is this: I like Harrison quite a bit. But, if one of Purke, Cole, Gray, possibly Jungmann, Daniel Norris, or Archie Bradley fall to us(definitely likely at least one makes it down there) I'm going to have a very hard time taking ANY hitter not named Rendon(top choice) or possibly Springer over anyone but Gray, Cole, or Purke.

Please rephrase. Honestly, I eat this stuff up and only wish it to make sense

[Guest]

We have a top 10 pick and like 2 of the top 10 players in the draft are hitters, and they are at the top. So if one of those top pitcher guys are there, he would have a hard time taking a hitter with our first pick unless one of those couple hitters happened to be there also.

[javy knows my name]

We have a top 10 pick and like 2 of the top 10 players in the draft are hitters, and they are at the top. So if one of those top pitcher guys are there, he would have a hard time taking a hitter with our first pick unless one of those couple hitters happened to be there also.

 

That does indeed make sense

[Guest]

If Springer really is top-10 material, I hope the Cubs pass. His contact issues are very troublesome.

[davell]

Harrison is a potential bady body type himself. But he does kill the ball. My thing is this: I like Harrison quite a bit. But, if one of Purke, Cole, Gray, possibly Jungmann, Daniel Norris, or Archie Bradley fall to us(definitely likely at least one makes it down there) I'm going to have a very hard time taking ANY hitter not named Rendon(top choice) or possibly Springer over anyone but Gray, Cole, or Purke.

Please rephrase. Honestly, I eat this stuff up and only wish it to make sense

 

 

Yeah, that did look confusing the way I phrased it. :D But, TT had it right with what I was thinking. If I was ranking guys at this exact moment as to how I would pick them, I'd go like this:

 

1 Rendon

2 Cole

3 Purke

4 Gray

5 Springer

6 Norris

7 Starling (would have higher but think he'll want top 3 money)

8 Bradley

9 ???????(Harrison, Bundy, Bauer, Jed Bradley, Esposito, Swihart)

 

I love this stuff, but it's almost a certainty that these guys change positioning some, maybe even a ton. Wouldn't shock me at all if at least one guy I just mentioned falls to the 2nd round even.

 

I'll say this though: Having a guy like Brett Jackson almost ready to go, makes me want to have no part whatsoever in Jackie Bradley, Mikie Mahtook or Brian Goodwin, since they profile as somewhat close to Jackson. This may help us out too, because there's a chance one or possibly even two(Bradley and possibly Goodwin) could go off the board before we pick.

[davell]

If Springer really is top-10 material, I hope the Cubs pass. His contact issues are very troublesome.

 

 

He's got a good eye though. If the K's are because he's selective with what he swings at, I'm OK with it. I think he's got 30/30 upside anyway. He's basically the exact type guy I want to see added to the system this year. But, it'll be interesting to see how he handles wooden bats this season.

[craig]

Springer is also really old. He'll turn 22 next summer, I think.

[davell]

http://baseballbeginnings.com/2010/11/02/charles-tilson-report#more-9820

 

Here's a kid that's going to Illinois next year and is evidently going to be a tough sign, according to Callis most likely. If he drops past the 2nd round, he's a guy I wouldn't mind going overslot for.

[Outshined_One]

If Springer really is top-10 material, I hope the Cubs pass. His contact issues are very troublesome.

 

 

He's got a good eye though. If the K's are because he's selective with what he swings at, I'm OK with it. I think he's got 30/30 upside anyway. He's basically the exact type guy I want to see added to the system this year. But, it'll be interesting to see how he handles wooden bats this season.

 

Brett Jackson comes to mind in this regard.

[CubsWin]

http://baseballbeginnings.com/2010/11/02/charles-tilson-report#more-9820

 

Here's a kid that's going to Illinois next year and is evidently going to be a tough sign, according to Callis most likely. If he drops past the 2nd round, he's a guy I wouldn't mind going overslot for.

He looks good. Only problem is he's a Trevian. ETHS all the way, baby.

[Outshined_One]

Harrison is a potential bady body type himself. But he does kill the ball. My thing is this: I like Harrison quite a bit. But, if one of Purke, Cole, Gray, possibly Jungmann, Daniel Norris, or Archie Bradley fall to us(definitely likely at least one makes it down there) I'm going to have a very hard time taking ANY hitter not named Rendon(top choice) or possibly Springer over anyone but Gray, Cole, or Purke.

Please rephrase. Honestly, I eat this stuff up and only wish it to make sense

 

 

Yeah, that did look confusing the way I phrased it. :D But, TT had it right with what I was thinking. If I was ranking guys at this exact moment as to how I would pick them, I'd go like this:

 

1 Rendon

2 Cole

3 Purke

4 Gray

5 Springer

6 Norris

7 Starling (would have higher but think he'll want top 3 money)

8 Bradley

9 ???????(Harrison, Bundy, Bauer, Jed Bradley, Esposito, Swihart)

 

I love this stuff, but it's almost a certainty that these guys change positioning some, maybe even a ton. Wouldn't shock me at all if at least one guy I just mentioned falls to the 2nd round even.

 

Heck, look at someone like Rick Hague, who might have been drafted in rounds 7-10 last year if he didn't have a bounceback late in the season and got nabbed in the 3rd round. I remember he was supposed to be a surefire Top 15 guy at one point last season, but he just collapsed. As much as I love draft prognosticating, we are a long, long, long way off from the draft.

 

I'll say this though: Having a guy like Brett Jackson almost ready to go, makes me want to have no part whatsoever in Jackie Bradley, Mikie Mahtook or Brian Goodwin, since they profile as somewhat close to Jackson. This may help us out too, because there's a chance one or possibly even two(Bradley and possibly Goodwin) could go off the board before we pick.

 

If any of those guys are BPA, the Cubs should just select accordingly. Jackson could flame out or be used as trade bait or whatever. It's nice to have some diversity in the system (I'm going to be hammering home this HS position player thing for the foreseeable future), but I think it would be a mistake for the Cubs to pass on someone just because they have Brett Jackson. If the Cubs legitimately believe that guy could be as good as Jackson, if not better, then why not take him?

[craig]

I'll say this though: Having a guy like Brett Jackson almost ready to go, makes me want to have no part whatsoever in Jackie Bradley, Mikie Mahtook or Brian Goodwin, since they profile as somewhat close to Jackson. This may help us out too, because there's a chance one or possibly even two(Bradley and possibly Goodwin) could go off the board before we pick.

 

If any of those guys are BPA, the Cubs should just select accordingly. Jackson could flame out or be used as trade bait or whatever. It's nice to have some diversity in the system (I'm going to be hammering home this HS position player thing for the foreseeable future), but I think it would be a mistake for the Cubs to pass on someone just because they have Brett Jackson. If the Cubs legitimately believe that guy could be as good as Jackson, if not better, then why not take him?

 

Agree. If they are BPA and worth a top-10 pick, great. Given his K-contact problems, I'm not sure whether Jackson will be able to handle the movement and breaking stuff of the best pitchers in the world. But if he can hit enough to keep his average, OBP, and HR's strong, terrific. If successful, he could be a good power, good OBP, good speed, good corner defense guy, and perhaps for a while a respectable CF defender. I'll take another one of those for sure if I believe the guy's really going to be all that.

 

Obviously a guy who profiles like Jackson, in terms of so much contact problems and so many K's, and actually not all that many HR's yet, that wouldn't seem like a real great risk at #9. Jackson seemed like a real high-risk pick when we took him, at 31(?). The fact that he's done well so far doesn't change the fact that he was a pretty high-risk pick at the time, and that to take another contact-challenged hitter would again be pretty risky.

 

BPA of course. I think it's harder when there is no singular BPA. Every prospect has projected possibilities for good, and projected possibilities of what might prevent high success. Risk-reward on every guy. So if their is a tier of equivalent overall risk-reward guys, my preferences would be:

 

1. Player > pitcher. I think Wilken expressed this at the Convention. Maybe I'm cheating a bit, because the risks and rewards differ. So maybe I'm really just reasoning that the pitcher isn't really an equivalent risk-reward value but is actually more risky. But I think the injury risk and arm-deterioration factor for pitchers is so substantial. Often pitchers are viewed as lesser risks: a college pitcher is already fast and already has a good breaking pitch, there is little projection risk, you can see that he will succeed in the majors soon. The risk of slow progress, unfulfilled projection, and non-arrival seems minimal. So I think the risk-reward analysis can often miscalculate the risk. But the reward of having a long-term success is reduced, too. Five years after the draft how many of the power arms are throwing exceptionally fast? Between true injury and just wear, most pitchers don't have the stuff they had even five years into their pro careers. If you pick a player and he works out to be solid, you can have a solid player for a more extended period. It's not normal for players to just naturally and probably deteriorate five years into their careers.

 

2. OF > IF (in terms of projected position.) We've got some volume of infielders, and castro in hand. Else equal, I'd rather take an OFer. Obviously to be valued equally, an OFer would be expected to hit better.

 

3. HS > College. A college guy is closer to mlb, and requires far less projection. Those are two substantial advantages; therefore if a HS player is overall evaluated as a comparable BPA/risk-reward value, the HS player must have some other advantages to get to the same overall value level. The HS player probably has essentially no evident flaws, but there's always the risk that flaws will be exposed in time. But if you have no evident flaws now and none show up, you could have an almost perfect player. For a college player, everything is more certain, but I don't think he lasts even till 9 without having some already evident flaws.

[davell]

With where we are in this stage, before the season even begins, I would probably give us a 50/50 shot right now of having one of Rendon, Cole, or Purke fall to us at 9, with what all can and probably will happen over the course of the season.

 

I see what you guys are saying about BPA too, but I guess I'd look at it like this: If Jackie Bradley is one player ahead of Daniel Norris on Wilken's big board, but they are extremely close, personally I'd take Norris, because we have a guy who's close to Bradley, but not anyone like Norris(power lefty) in the system, even knowing that Jackson is certainly not a sure bet at this point.

[Outshined_One]

With where we are in this stage, before the season even begins, I would probably give us a 50/50 shot right now of having one of Rendon, Cole, or Purke fall to us at 9, with what all can and probably will happen over the course of the season.

 

Unfortunately, I'm not as optimistic as you in this regard. Most of the teams ahead of the Cubs have, in recent history, shown a willingness to fork over the money necessary to sign top players. If one of those guys slip to the Cubs, I'm guessing that means something went really wrong for him along the way.

 

Otherwise, I pretty much agree with craig, although, I'd tweak OF > IF to: Corner IF > OF > C > MIF. Considering the already mentioned lack of power bats in this system, I'd prefer to see those bats come from the corner IF spots (hence the Travis Harrison question above) over the OF.

[davell]

Harrison's going to be interesting in the fact that he could be considered a 3B, OF, or a 1B right now. With his body type, I figure he'll wind up at 1B, but it's so early in his career that it's possible his body tightens up some.

[imb]

Harrison is a potential bady body type himself. But he does kill the ball. My thing is this: I like Harrison quite a bit. But, if one of Purke, Cole, Gray, possibly Jungmann, Daniel Norris, or Archie Bradley fall to us(definitely likely at least one makes it down there) I'm going to have a very hard time taking ANY hitter not named Rendon(top choice) or possibly Springer over anyone but Gray, Cole, or Purke.

Please rephrase. Honestly, I eat this stuff up and only wish it to make sense

 

 

Yeah, that did look confusing the way I phrased it. :D But, TT had it right with what I was thinking. If I was ranking guys at this exact moment as to how I would pick them, I'd go like this:

 

1 Rendon

2 Cole

3 Purke

4 Gray

5 Springer

6 Norris

7 Starling (would have higher but think he'll want top 3 money)

8 Bradley

9 ???????(Harrison, Bundy, Bauer, Jed Bradley, Esposito, Swihart)

 

I love this stuff, but it's almost a certainty that these guys change positioning some, maybe even a ton. Wouldn't shock me at all if at least one guy I just mentioned falls to the 2nd round even.

 

I'll say this though: Having a guy like Brett Jackson almost ready to go, makes me want to have no part whatsoever in Jackie Bradley, Mikie Mahtook or Brian Goodwin, since they profile as somewhat close to Jackson. This may help us out too, because there's a chance one or possibly even two(Bradley and possibly Goodwin) could go off the board before we pick.

 

This is really random, but I've seen Bradley pitch multiple times, and he's one of just a handful of players to impress me. It includes the Kozma kid that the Cardinals drafted, both the Bundy brothers and himself.

[davell]

You're talking about Archie, right? Do you like him more or less than Dylan Bundy? Part of me thinks Bundy and Sonny Gray too get penalized for their somewhat lack of typical ace projection size.

 

What I've read about Bradley and Bundy tells me Bundy is more polished and probably the better pitcher right now. But, it seems like Bradley has the ability to move past him longterm evidently?

[imb]

Bradley is 100 times the athlete that Bundy is, but to be fair, I havent seen Bundy since he was a sophomore and I only saw him hit (which was quite impressive). I first saw Bradley as a freshman and I was convinced he was a senior until I asked the PA guy. At the time they were more excited about his football skills as a QB, but we are in football country.

 

I mean, obviously I'm not a scout or anything, but even as a freshman, he passed the eye test with flying colors.

[KingCubsFan]

Is there any chance Rendon falls to us?

[davell]

Is there any chance Rendon falls to us?

 

Not without having a pretty down year. I said earlier I could see one of Purke, Cole, or Rendon falling to us and giving it a 50/50 shot. But, it's not because of teams unwillingness to spend money on the draft at this point. I was basing it more on my odds of one of them having an off year and dropping because of that.

 

Boras already has Rendon, Garrit Cole, Starling, Josh Bell(HS OFer) that has extremely varying views right now from what I can tell and one of either Jackie or Jed Bradley. I'm pretty sure there are some teams out there that don't want to deal with him, so maybe Rendon or Cole could possibly fall a bit because of that as well, but not to 9, unless they give teams a reason to pass on them.

[davell]

Bradley is 100 times the athlete that Bundy is, but to be fair, I havent seen Bundy since he was a sophomore and I only saw him hit (which was quite impressive). I first saw Bradley as a freshman and I was convinced he was a senior until I asked the PA guy. At the time they were more excited about his football skills as a QB, but we are in football country.

 

I mean, obviously I'm not a scout or anything, but even as a freshman, he passed the eye test with flying colors.

 

 

That's cool. It'd probably be a pretty cool game to go see when they pitch against each other this season. I can't imagine how many scouts would be there for that.