Prospects who were never Cubs

[davell]

I was curious to see how much pitching we missed out on by drafting the way we did. Not necessarily looking to see who we could have had if we took pitching in the 1st(2012 excluded), that's worked out about as well as it could have. But who we may have missed out on in rounds 2-10, or later thru 2015. It hasn't been all that much, to be completely honest.

 

First though, in fairness, lets look at 2012 and the pitching we could have had instead of Almora.....This one hurts. Almora went 6th, while Andrew Heaney went 9th, Lucas Giolito went 16th(forgivable, as using your 1st pick since taking over on a TJS guy would be way too risky right off the bat), Michael Wacha at 19 and Marcus Stroman at 22. That said, hindsight and all, but it obviously would be nice to have one of that group right now already inserted into our rotation or in Giolito's case, being the best pitching prospect in baseball.

 

We took Pierce Johnson and Paul Blackburn with supplemental picks that year and Duane Underwood in the 2nd round. We didn't whiff on many guys that were taken later than them. Alex Wood was a late 2nd rounder, as was Jake Thompson(who's a top 50ish prospect now). Thats pretty much it. So while it certainly would have been great to have grabbed one of those guys instead of Almora at 6, it would have been extremely difficult to have chosen correctly on Wood over Johnson or Thompson over Blackburn, considering the other 18 pitchers that were also drafted in between Johnson(highest) and Thompson(lowest).

 

2013 saw us take Bryant, so any pitcher taken before our next pick(which was Zastryzny) is off limits obviously and rightfully so. Wow, what a [expletive] show of pitching this draft has been. From our 2nd round pick thru the end of the draft, there's one guy(unless I'm missing someone) that's either a legit major league pitcher or a top 100 prospect. It's Jose De Leon, who the Dodgers McNutted in the 24th round. But that's it. So while our pitching didn't produce out of that draft, no one else's did either.

 

I guess we can look at 2014 already, since there's actually some guys in the majors. I'd love to have Aaron Nola, to be honest. But not at the expense of Schwarber, not even close. So again, we start in the 2nd round with our pick of Stinnett. At a bit of a discount off of slot too. He obviously hasn't looked good as of yet, but considering what else we pulled off in getting Sands, Steele, and Cease, who each have the ability to conceivably become top 100 types at some point soon, it's a bit hard to look at that singular pick in too hateful of a light. But we could have had Brent Honeywell, who went late in the 2nd to Tampa, at a price underneath Stinnett's. 16 pitchers went between Stinnett and Honeywell, by the way.

 

I'm not even sure why I looked this stuff up. All it shows is how hard it is to draft pitching and especially how hard it is to draft pitching outside of the 1st round. I think it's almost fair to say that coming up with Underwood and the upside of Sands/Steele/Cease has been a solid enough job by the FO, since they've tried to add in other ways too. But it's not hard at all to see why they like the position players in the 1st. I honestly can't understand why all these teams rebuilding now are trying to do it with pitching. Our way was so much easier and safer.

[Cubswin11]

I was curious to see how much pitching we missed out on by drafting the way we did. Not necessarily looking to see who we could have had if we took pitching in the 1st(2012 excluded), that's worked out about as well as it could have. But who we may have missed out on in rounds 2-10, or later thru 2015. It hasn't been all that much, to be completely honest.

 

First though, in fairness, lets look at 2012 and the pitching we could have had instead of Almora.....This one hurts. Almora went 6th, while Andrew Heaney went 9th, Lucas Giolito went 16th(forgivable, as using your 1st pick since taking over on a TJS guy would be way too risky right off the bat), Michael Wacha at 19 and Marcus Stroman at 22. That said, hindsight and all, but it obviously would be nice to have one of that group right now already inserted into our rotation or in Giolito's case, being the best pitching prospect in baseball.

 

We took Pierce Johnson and Paul Blackburn with supplemental picks that year and Duane Underwood in the 2nd round. We didn't whiff on many guys that were taken later than them. Alex Wood was a late 2nd rounder, as was Jake Thompson(who's a top 50ish prospect now). Thats pretty much it. So while it certainly would have been great to have grabbed one of those guys instead of Almora at 6, it would have been extremely difficult to have chosen correctly on Wood over Johnson or Thompson over Blackburn, considering the other 18 pitchers that were also drafted in between Johnson(highest) and Thompson(lowest).

 

2013 saw us take Bryant, so any pitcher taken before our next pick(which was Zastryzny) is off limits obviously and rightfully so. Wow, what a [expletive] show of pitching this draft has been. From our 2nd round pick thru the end of the draft, there's one guy(unless I'm missing someone) that's either a legit major league pitcher or a top 100 prospect. It's Jose De Leon, who the Dodgers McNutted in the 24th round. But that's it. So while our pitching didn't produce out of that draft, no one else's did either.

 

I guess we can look at 2014 already, since there's actually some guys in the majors. I'd love to have Aaron Nola, to be honest. But not at the expense of Schwarber, not even close. So again, we start in the 2nd round with our pick of Stinnett. At a bit of a discount off of slot too. He obviously hasn't looked good as of yet, but considering what else we pulled off in getting Sands, Steele, and Cease, who each have the ability to conceivably become top 100 types at some point soon, it's a bit hard to look at that singular pick in too hateful of a light. But we could have had Brent Honeywell, who went late in the 2nd to Tampa, at a price underneath Stinnett's. 16 pitchers went between Stinnett and Honeywell, by the way.

 

I'm not even sure why I looked this stuff up. All it shows is how hard it is to draft pitching and especially how hard it is to draft pitching outside of the 1st round. I think it's almost fair to say that coming up with Underwood and the upside of Sands/Steele/Cease has been a solid enough job by the FO, since they've tried to add in other ways too. But it's not hard at all to see why they like the position players in the 1st. I honestly can't understand why all these teams rebuilding now are trying to do it with pitching. Our way was so much easier and safer.

The rule, as always, [expletive] pitchers. Except Jake, we love Jake.

[craig]

Thanks for interesting review. Certainly some pitchers from these recent drafts will emerge in time, who aren't recognized yet. Other teams may have guys like Steele/Sands/Cease who may emerge down the road, but aren't recognized in top-50 lists yet.

 

The strategy of using high picks on players, and then stocking up on pitchers with picks outside the top-25, that's a great strategy. But your review highlights how challenging it is to hit on sandwich/2nd-round/later pitchers. Internationally they've also focused their spending on players, even this year thus far. Pitchers are risky acquisitions. But still you've got to get them somewhere, somehow.

 

With Hammels and Lackey expiring over the next two years, would be nice to be able to replace them with internal guys, quality internal guys. The system may be pressed to do so.

 

The strategy may be to simply buy them or trade for them rather than developing any yourself. But seeing the high price for pitchers in trade, that approach won't come cheap. Hitting on a couple of non-1st-round picks somehow would really, really help.

 

Johnson, Underwood, DelaRosa, Steels, Cease, Tseng, Sands, Hudson, please develop beautifully, perhaps unexpectedly better than we have reason to hope or expect or than statistics could justify!

[davell]

It really just seems backwards to me.....The success rates of high ranked hitting prospects is close to double that of what it is for pitching. In my mind, that means in order to trade ONE hitter like that, you ought to receive TWO pitchers, in order to balance out the risk involved. However, it kind of seems to be the opposite(at least in Dave Stewarts mind) where it appears teams want TWO hitters for ONE of those type pitchers. In a run environment that's severely diminished to begin with. From that standpoint alone, it's hard for me to fault our guys for not going out and paying up for a Carrasco/Salazar/etc.....

 

If we can top off our IFA class with two of Ruiz/Gutierrez/Morejon/Perez/Bolanos/Sierra, I'd say we hit it out of the park.

 

As an aside, I kind of suspect our approach to drafting from here on out will change dramatically, as we can start to afford taking chances on pitching later(this year doesn't count, as we'll have so small of a draft budget). But if top end guys with arm issues, like a Giolito or an Aiken fall to us in the future, I'd suspect we'd pounce on them at this stage.

[Cubswin11]

As an aside, I kind of suspect our approach to drafting from here on out will change dramatically, as we can start to afford taking chances on pitching later(this year doesn't count, as we'll have so small of a draft budget). But if top end guys with arm issues, like a Giolito or an Aiken fall to us in the future, I'd suspect we'd pounce on them at this stage.

I kinda agree, especially this year, with taking a TJS injury risk on a guy who would've gone a lot higher or taking 1 tough sign HS guy and blowing the wad on him and then going signability. Going forward I still would like to mostly the F pitchers mentality and take college bats early then going the volume route on pitching.

[CubsWin]

As an aside, I kind of suspect our approach to drafting from here on out will change dramatically, as we can start to afford taking chances on pitching later(this year doesn't count, as we'll have so small of a draft budget). But if top end guys with arm issues, like a Giolito or an Aiken fall to us in the future, I'd suspect we'd pounce on them at this stage.

I kinda agree, especially this year, with taking a TJS injury risk on a guy who would've gone a lot higher or taking 1 tough sign HS guy and blowing the wad on him and then going signability. Going forward I still would like to mostly the F pitchers mentality and take college bats early then going the volume route on pitching.

I think the Cubs will stick to BPA but, if they are picking consistently in the upper 20s, pitchers and hitters will be more even in their grading system than in the top 10. So we may end up seeing the Cubs take more arms as a result. I personally want them to take guys with a shot at TOR status, so that would mean, as you pointed out, going the riskier TJS/prep arm route, but I doubt that fits Theo & Jed's thinking. If this trend of outrageous prices for TOR talent (both in money and talent) continues, maybe their thinking will change.

[CubsWin]

It really just seems backwards to me.....The success rates of high ranked hitting prospects is close to double that of what it is for pitching. In my mind, that means in order to trade ONE hitter like that, you ought to receive TWO pitchers, in order to balance out the risk involved. However, it kind of seems to be the opposite(at least in Dave Stewarts mind) where it appears teams want TWO hitters for ONE of those type pitchers. In a run environment that's severely diminished to begin with. From that standpoint alone, it's hard for me to fault our guys for not going out and paying up for a Carrasco/Salazar/etc...

If you're talking prospects, I agree, it does seem backwards. But the prices we've seen are for already established big league #1s and #2s. They've made it through the minors and have proven themselves. The injury risk still remains simply because they're a pitcher, but the rarity of true TORs balances out the injury risk.

 

And, of course, trades are affected by many other factors including the mentality of the team's upper management (i.e. Dave Stewart, as you pointed out). Other GMs might point to the haul the Braves got, but it won't hold much water. Every team is unique in their phase of development, pressure to win, roster make-up, championship window and management philosophy/personality. I agree, I can't see Theo & Jed ever agreeing to trading an all-star caliber CFer, and 2 top prospect for someone like MIller either.

 

In the case of the D-backs, they are all in with the signing of Grienke and 3 years of control on Goldschmidt and Pollack, their window is clearly defined. They had to maximize their opportunity and badly needed a strong #2 in their rotation in order to do so. The Cubs may be in that position down the road if Arrieta leaves, but for now they have a solid #2 in Lester. Lackey buys them 2 years to develop a #3 with Underwood the most likely candidate. The Hamels trade was just 6 months ago. In the world of trades, it's very individualized and things change pretty quickly. And can change back, too.

[craig]

....I think the Cubs will stick to BPA but, if they are picking consistently in the upper 20s, pitchers and hitters will be more even in their grading system than in the top 10. So we may end up seeing the Cubs take more arms as a result. I personally want them to take guys with a shot at TOR status, so that would mean, as you pointed out, going the riskier TJS/prep arm route, but I doubt that fits Theo & Jed's thinking. If this trend of outrageous prices for TOR talent (both in money and talent) continues, maybe their thinking will change.

 

Happy New Year, guys! Hopefully it will be a really fun one for the big-league team, and a fun one for the developing prospects, and hopefully signing some more, as well.

 

Win, I agree that drafting pitchers in the mid-late 1st is much more understandable than doing so in the top 6, for risk-reward reasons.

 

When picking in the top 6, there should be a player who's good enough to have only modest performance risk; why take the injury-risk pitcher? But by pick 10 or above, the performance risk with players is rising, and the inherent injury-risk with pitchers may be no worse than the performance-risk with players.

 

Case-by-case, scouting all the way!