Minor League Discussion & Boxes 4-17-12

[toonsterwu]

sneaky - how many of those guys were

 

a) Considered solid first, and not in that compensatory-2nd round range like Simpson.

 

AND

 

b) Likely able to fit into our limited draft budget that year, which was still a bump from 2009, IIRC.

 

Taijuan Walker was a prep arm coming off a mildly disappointing final high school season, iirc. Castellanos/Lee/Yelich/Cox/Jenkins likely wouldn't have fit inour budget. Ranaudo was seriously hurt and demanding the moon. I don't recall the demands/eventual contracts of Syndegaard/Sanchez off the top, but in regards to Syndegaard, I'm pretty sure he was a late bloomer and didn't gain velocity until late in his senior year (recall reading that somewhere). If the Cubs didn't see him with his plus velocity gain, then I can understand not gambling on a prep arm like that that high. Sanchez was far more projection, as he was low 90's with fringy secondary stuff and inconsistent command coming into the draft, iirc.

 

In retrospect, I would've liked Olt. To be fair, though, he was lumped in that same range as Hayden, compensatory to 2nd round. That leaves, what h Brentz/Asher/Gary Brown. I can understand passing on Gary Brown after drafting a fairly similar kid that high a year ago in Brett Jackson, but okay, I can understand saying that the system could use another OF talent so that one's fair game (and I also still think we need to take a wait and see on Gary Brown develops outside of the Cal League ... think the hype is getting a bit ahead of reality for him right now). The chances of Wilken drafting Brentz - not high, and I can't really fault that, as there is value in prioritizing up-the-middle guys and arms ahead of corner guys. I would've been intrigued with the pick, but can't find a big issue there (also feel that Brentz's hype is getting a bit ahead of reality ... let's see how his K rate looks at the end of the year, after striking out 25% of the time last year). It's easy to forget now, but Asher was projected as a closer by some (and, not that it is relevant, but as a starter, he looks like who many thought he would be ... an end of the rotation type arm with mid-rotation ceiling).

 

Hayden wasn't my preferred pick or one of my favorites at the spot, and I don't think anyone but a few guys thought he was first round (there was considerable buzz from D2 folks, IIRC, that they thought Hayden was first round material), but I think we're letting what has happened to him after the draft, particularly the fracture, impact our opinions on the situation then. Sure, there's an argument to be made that maybe we should've gone with one high cost pick and gone low-ball on the rest of the draft, but considering the attrition rates of prospects, there's a counter argument for quantity. There's an argument, based on hindsight, for junking the pick and taking a 2011 ... but unless Wilken and Co. knew then that the budget was going to jump significantly, I don't know if I see the validity for that argument, because had they pondered that, then they probably would've also thought (again, unless they knew that the budget was jumping) that the extra 2011 pick would've been a signability pick (see ... Cory Spangenberg).

 

When you winnow the list down based on the reality of the situation then, as far as we knew about it, it seems like you are left with either taking a signability prep reach (I can imagine some of us would've complained then if they had gone for someone like Aaron Sanchez there), a low ceiling/high floor collegiate arm (Asher/Alex come to mind, and I didn't care for either at the time of the draft), or a relatively cheap collegiate positional player. The last thing is the one that, I think, probably merits the most consideration, but some of the key names were either pure corner guys (Brentz), or guys who played the same positions as then top Cubs prospects (Brett/Josh). Viewed within that framework, which I think is a fair way to analyze the situation, taking a gamble and trusting their scouts isn't a bad idea.

[PriortoTheoIhadWood]

If you really think about it the Cubs actually did what the Padres did with CS last year at 10...Took a college guy with like able tools who might be considered a reach and then splurged on guys after. Do we land upside guys like Wells, Golden, and Reed in 2010 otherwise? That's in doubt.

 

Simpson getting hurt sucks, but like Toonster said only with hindsight is the pick truly a bad one. It was just another way of working the draft really. One that our new DoS used in SD the very next year.

[toonsterwu]

To be fair, I think the Spangenberg situation is slightly different. That was a compensatory pick for not signing Whitson, IIRC, and so they had to go for a guy they could lock in. Whether or not Spangenberg's talent level justifies a nod is a slightly tangential, albeit not entirely unrelated, issue.

 

For all the talk about taking a gamble, we did end up gambling on a guy that was viewed as a borderline 1st round possibility in Reggie Golden. It just happened in the 2nd.

[illiniguy]

As intrigued as I would've been with the idea of a Zach Lee gamble (I assume that's who you were referencing), and taking a pick in 2011 if he didn't sign, I don't know if any of us knew, in 2010, that the Cubs were going to significantly bump their draft spending in 2011. I also think most teams don't like the idea of missing out on a draft pick in the first round. You'd rather get a guy in and develop him than hoping for a good talent next year. There's something to be said for trusting your scouts, even if they miss, and I believe, off the top, that the same guy who scouted Hayden was the same guy who scouted Ben Wells.

 

As a side note, off the top again, but I think Taijuan Walker struggled in his final year in HS, and thus, went from a possible first to compensatory.

Add in the '10 draft was weak outside of the top three and the '11 was considered very deep, I still think the Zachary Lee move was the way to go. Also wasn't it common knowledge, or at least assumed that we were saving money in year one to recover from the sale?

[toonsterwu]

Sure, but I don't think anyone then anticipated the level of jump that eventually occurred last year. If so, then I must have missed something. I guess my thing is this - if they knew that there was an anticipated significant jump, then the idea of killing the pick isn't the worst thing, although I still don't think it's a prudent way to develop things (and I think there are very few teams, if any, that would willingly throw away a mid-first pick now for unknown future value - I think the uproar would've been far higher here if we'd spent a pick on Lee, failed to sign him, and then we resigned ourselves to a signability pick the following year).

[illiniguy]

Sure, but I don't think anyone then anticipated the level of jump that eventually occurred last year. If so, then I must have missed something. I guess my thing is this - if they knew that there was an anticipated significant jump, then the idea of killing the pick isn't the worst thing, although I still don't think it's a prudent way to develop things (and I think there are very few teams, if any, that would willingly throw away a mid-first pick now for unknown future value - I think the uproar would've been far higher here if we'd spent a pick on Lee, failed to sign him, and then we resigned ourselves to a signability pick the following year).

I could be wrong, but I thought people knew 2011 was loaded for a few years now.

[toonsterwu]

I think there's some misunderstanding. The 2011 class was thought of as strong for awhile. I was referencing the eventual amount of money we spent in the 2011 draft in response to your comment

Also wasn't it common knowledge, or at least assumed that we were saving money in year one to recover from the sale?

 

(that is, I'm not sure it was known that we would make such a jump in draft spending last year compared to before).

[illiniguy]

I think there's some misunderstanding. The 2011 class was thought of as strong for awhile. I was referencing the eventual amount of money we spent in the 2011 draft in response to your comment

Also wasn't it common knowledge, or at least assumed that we were saving money in year one to recover from the sale?

 

(that is, I'm not sure it was known that we would make such a jump in draft spending last year compared to before).

Oh gotcha. Yeah that is probably true. Although I would assume Ricketts was letting his guys know, I hope.

[toonsterwu]

I can't say I know how they did things, although it sure would be nice, but from my experience, as much planning was organizations make for the future, it's really hard to have a definitive idea on things 1 year ahead of time.

 

Anyhow, I feel like the Simpson thing has been beaten to death. Here's hoping he builds up strength and improves his velocity.

[illiniguy]

I can't say I know how they did things, although it sure would be nice, but from my experience, as much planning was organizations make for the future, it's really hard to have a definitive idea on things 1 year ahead of time.

 

Anyhow, I feel like the Simpson thing has been beaten to death. Here's hoping he builds up strength and improves his velocity.

I agree.

[Outshined_One]

If you really think about it the Cubs actually did what the Padres did with CS last year at 10...Took a college guy with like able tools who might be considered a reach and then splurged on guys after. Do we land upside guys like Wells, Golden, and Reed in 2010 otherwise? That's in doubt.

 

Simpson getting hurt sucks, but like Toonster said only with hindsight is the pick truly a bad one. It was just another way of working the draft really. One that our new DoS used in SD the very next year.

 

The problem is, the Padres ended up spending a little over $11m on their 2011 draft. The Cubs ended up spending a little over $5m on their 2010 draft, and that's only after including Szczur's post-draft bonus.

[PriortoTheoIhadWood]

The problem is, the Padres ended up spending a little over $11m on their 2011 draft. The Cubs ended up spending a little over $5m on their 2010 draft, and that's only after including Szczur's post-draft bonus.

 

True true....OTOH, the Cubs landed at least 3 tough HS signs past round one (Golden, Wells, and the lagging behind Reed) and the Padres in 2011 made 6 picks between rounds 1 and 2.

[TruffleShuffle]

why do people talk about golden like he was some huge bonus baby? he got paid $160,000 over his second round slot. every team has guys like that sometimes (except for maybe the white sox).

[PriortoTheoIhadWood]

why do people talk about golden like he was some huge bonus baby? he got paid $160,000 over his second round slot. every team has guys like that sometimes (except for maybe the white sox).

 

Not a huge bonus baby so much as the Cubs taking an upside HS faller who signed for above slot. Realistically speaking it's hard to find big bonus babies past the first comp (off the top of my head - feel free to correct because I can't think of a player example) unless the prospect is just a big time faller...either for signing reasons or something physical.