2012 Draft Day Thread + Cubs Picks Discussion

[SouthSideRyan]

 

And my least favorite...

JWR (Chicago): Cubs are awful this year but should Cub fans be excited about the direction that Theo and Hoyer have pointed the Cubs? It seems like there is a plan, even if this year and next year are going to be a bit of a trainwreck.

 

Kevin Goldstein: Maybe 2014 too. The organization is in the right hands, but they're not miracle workers.

 

At this point I think Cubs fans should just accept 2015 as the year to look forward to. If we somehow start competing in 2014 then that's just a bonus. Plus although this year is terrible and next year will probably be more of the same without much improvement, even if we don't compete in 2014, we should see some clear improvement during that season, as I don't believe the FO is going to open up the check book to fill any holes we might have going into 2015 if the team finishes last in the MLB in 2014.

 

Ideally this year we finish 62-100, next year 65-97, 2014 79-83 and then compete in 2015.

 

That's stupid.

[jersey cubs fan]

Goldstein either underestimates the current talent on the Cubs roster, the amount they can acquire in less than 3 years, or both. Or maybe he overestimates how hard it is to contend for a playoff spot when one third of the teams in the league reach the post season.

 

I don't think it's the latter since he's stating the team will be a trainwreck during that timeframe.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

 

And my least favorite...

JWR (Chicago): Cubs are awful this year but should Cub fans be excited about the direction that Theo and Hoyer have pointed the Cubs? It seems like there is a plan, even if this year and next year are going to be a bit of a trainwreck.

 

Kevin Goldstein: Maybe 2014 too. The organization is in the right hands, but they're not miracle workers.

 

At this point I think Cubs fans should just accept 2015 as the year to look forward to. If we somehow start competing in 2014 then that's just a bonus. Plus although this year is terrible and next year will probably be more of the same without much improvement, even if we don't compete in 2014, we should see some clear improvement during that season, as I don't believe the FO is going to open up the check book to fill any holes we might have going into 2015 if the team finishes last in the MLB in 2014.

 

Ideally this year we finish 62-100, next year 65-97, 2014 79-83 and then compete in 2015.

 

If we aren't trying to compete in 2013 and 2014, there will be an epic amount of money left on the table. I guess that's where the Wrigley expansion will come from or something.

[davell]

We can finish dead last this year. It gets us the top pick for the following season, plus the biggest IFA budget as well. If we trade Dempster AND Garza, we literally have 34 mill committed to the 2013 payroll. Yes, Castro will get 4-5 mill, Shark will get a nice raise, and Stewart and Russell will get some money too. So, we're at 50 mill at that point. I don't see us paying Soto, Volstad, or Wells. They'll be dealt or DFA'd.

 

Rebuilding or not, there's no chance in hell we go into 2013 with a payroll this low. And signing a couple of vets to one year deals, doesn't do it either. We'll make some positive traction this upcoming offseason, whether it's Upton and Sanchez, or whoever. But, I can't see any actuality of our payroll dropping below the 90 area, and even then I think that's going to be on the lowest end. When we have the ability to carry 140ish or so.

[Guest]

Goldstein was on the score the other day and said that talks with Almora will start with the number 4 (meaning 4 million, obviously)

 

Is there any thought that the Cubs will not sign this guy so they can have 2 early picks next year in the supposedly better draft, and use his allotment to overslot some guys this year? Or would overslotting guys take away the make up pick next year.

 

You have to sign the guy to use that pick's portion of the allotment. So if you ignore Almora, then you forfeit the slot amount, I think it's around 3.25 million.

 

And this is true for all picks in the first 10 rounds (which is why so many seniors with no leverage were drafted in rounds 6-10).

[jersey cubs fan]

Goldstein was on the score the other day and said that talks with Almora will start with the number 4 (meaning 4 million, obviously)

 

Is there any thought that the Cubs will not sign this guy so they can have 2 early picks next year in the supposedly better draft, and use his allotment to overslot some guys this year? Or would overslotting guys take away the make up pick next year.

 

You have to sign the guy to use that pick's portion of the allotment. So if you ignore Almora, then you forfeit the slot amount, I think it's around 3.25 million.

 

Right, but doesn't it still leave a little more flexibility to overslot others if you aren't already overslotting Almora a bit?

[davell]

Goldstein was on the score the other day and said that talks with Almora will start with the number 4 (meaning 4 million, obviously)

 

Is there any thought that the Cubs will not sign this guy so they can have 2 early picks next year in the supposedly better draft, and use his allotment to overslot some guys this year? Or would overslotting guys take away the make up pick next year.

 

You have to sign the guy to use that pick's portion of the allotment. So if you ignore Almora, then you forfeit the slot amount, I think it's around 3.25 million.

 

Right, but doesn't it still leave a little more flexibility to overslot others if you aren't already overslotting Almora a bit?

It gives you the pro-rated amount of whatever your draft budget becomes, times the 5% overage allowance. Losing the 3.250 out of our draft budget would take that down to 234,000ish or so. Not a lot to work with honestly.

 

EDIT: Not counting the savings from your 8-10 round picks, which are certainly all coming in underslot.

[UMFan83]

Ideally this year we finish 62-100, next year 65-97, 2014 79-83 and then compete in 2015.

 

There is nothing ideal about that timeline. Nothing at all.

 

lol I deleted ideally but then couldnt think of another way to start that sentence so i put it back in there. How about "The most likely scenario to compete in 2015, we'll finish 62-100...."

[Guest]

Goldstein was on the score the other day and said that talks with Almora will start with the number 4 (meaning 4 million, obviously)

 

Is there any thought that the Cubs will not sign this guy so they can have 2 early picks next year in the supposedly better draft, and use his allotment to overslot some guys this year? Or would overslotting guys take away the make up pick next year.

 

You have to sign the guy to use that pick's portion of the allotment. So if you ignore Almora, then you forfeit the slot amount, I think it's around 3.25 million.

 

Right, but doesn't it still leave a little more flexibility to overslot others if you aren't already overslotting Almora a bit?

 

Perhaps, but since as far as we can tell Almora's overslot amount wouldn't be a huge departure from slot(unlike, say, Appel), I'm not sure it'd be worth the trouble.

[jersey cubs fan]

It gives you the pro-rated amount of whatever your draft budget becomes, times the 5% overage allowance. Losing the 3.250 out of our draft budget would take that down to 234,000ish or so. Not a lot to work with honestly.

 

But if signing him requires you to pay him over his slot, that would in turn take away from what you have at 2-10, correct? So, if you don't sign him, you aren't using his allotment, but you aren't also using the overslot that he would take up himself.

[davell]

It gives you the pro-rated amount of whatever your draft budget becomes, times the 5% overage allowance. Losing the 3.250 out of our draft budget would take that down to 234,000ish or so. Not a lot to work with honestly.

 

But if signing him requires you to pay him over his slot, that would in turn take away from what you have at 2-10, correct? So, if you don't sign him, you aren't using his allotment, but you aren't also using the overslot that he would take up himself.

True. but if he signs for 3.500, with his slot at 3.250 for instance, then you're basically losing the overage because you're losing his slot value. Washes out, in a scenario like that.

[davell]

the senior signs from rounds 8-10 probably account for any overslot we're going to have to do with Underwood or Blackburn. We've got roughly 400,000k to play with, as far as the 5% goes. If we didn't sign Almora, that number drops below 250,000K. Yes, it could help get us a couple of minor overslots from later on in the draft, but it doesn't even come close to getting us Wiseman, in all likelihood. It also basically guarantees us, that if Almora is getting an overslot, it's not going to come with a 4 as the 1st number.

 

I said it somewhere else here, but I think this can turn into a college recruiting type deal. Cars, houses, bags of cash, whatever. Anything under the table that doesn't get you caught basically. It's too important to get these guys signed and while things may fall in line at some point in the future, for now, I think there's too much of an unknown. Things could morph into this type of situation for a few years, in my mind.

[Guest]

The 2nd post has been updated to show all Cubs picks and their BA rank if they have one. I will add college commitments later.

[Guest]

From today's BA chat:

 

Mike (Chelmsford): What are the chances that Rhett Wiseman is able to get a deal done with the Cubs?

 

Jim Callis: Unlikely. He fell to the 25th round because of signability. That said, the Cubs can probably take some deep discounts in rounds 4-10, so it's possible they could throw all of that money at Wiseman.

 

Dan (Chicago): Would you rank Almora ahead of Javier Baez on a list of Cubs top prospects?

 

Jim Callis: It's close ... would have to see how this season plays out. Baez has more offensive ceiling, Almora a good ceiling and higher floor.

 

Dan (Chicago): What do you make of Almora's comments about going to college? Should I be concerned he won't sign or are they just Boras tactics?

 

Jim Callis: He'll sign. I'd be stunned if he didn't.

 

Benny (Cubs Central): Looking forward to seeing Theo lock up Almora, Underwood and Johnson. Can he get all three done, in your opinion?

 

Jim Callis: Yes. Combined pick value for those three is $5.3 million, which should be close enough to get it done.

[UMFan83]

the senior signs from rounds 8-10 probably account for any overslot we're going to have to do with Underwood or Blackburn. We've got roughly 400,000k to play with, as far as the 5% goes. If we didn't sign Almora, that number drops below 250,000K. Yes, it could help get us a couple of minor overslots from later on in the draft, but it doesn't even come close to getting us Wiseman, in all likelihood. It also basically guarantees us, that if Almora is getting an overslot, it's not going to come with a 4 as the 1st number.

 

I said it somewhere else here, but I think this can turn into a college recruiting type deal. Cars, houses, bags of cash, whatever. Anything under the table that doesn't get you caught basically. It's too important to get these guys signed and while things may fall in line at some point in the future, for now, I think there's too much of an unknown. Things could morph into this type of situation for a few years, in my mind.

 

Are your number projections based on the 5% overage that's allowed before penalties?

[davell]

Yeah, if we sign all of our picks, we've got 7,933,000 allotted to us. Add the 5% overage that we'd have to pay a 75% tax on, and we've got around 8,350,000ish to spend total. I'm assuming we'll take that penalty to maximize whatever we can sign anyway. If we sign all of our top 10 for the actual allotment, it'd leave us the overage to go sign an extra guy or 2 from 11-40, if one's worth it to us. Just don't see Wiseman signing for anywhere near that though. To me, the only shot we'd have at him, is if we somehow came in under the allotment by a bit and had a mill to offer Wiseman somehow. Then, he'd have to seriously consider it. But, he's a guy who committed to Vandy when he was 15, so who even knows at that point?

[davell]

Lucas Sims signed for 1.65 today. Which is 175k underslot actually. Be nice if Johnson or Blackburn gave us a little extra room.

[craig]

I don't understand all the complaint that the guys in rounds 6-10 weren't all the best. Why should we expect straight talent order to prevail now when it never did before? Did Dunston go in round 11 and Maples in round 14 based on talent, and all the guys in rounds 2-10 were considered more talented? The landscape has changed, but it's not like dollars and price factors hadn't totally dictated that a lot of guys went outside of talent order before. I don't see much new.

 

I don't think the draft was as fun for me this year. In past, I'd always dream and wish for some big superslot guy, even though it rarely happened. But not a lot of suspense on Day 3 this week. Anybody who looks really exciting can't be signed, more or less.

[craig]

A bunch of local newspapers have stories about their local kid who got drafted. Many of them talk about how the Cubs called in advance, and either asked if they'd sign, or asked what their thoughts were. We'll see what the Cubs were kind of sharing or offering, but it could certainly work out that everybody from 4th round conway on through 10 could be subslot if necessary. Prieto said he'd sign. Lang talked as if he already has agreed, and will be heading for Mesa next week. Etc.

 

Boras always wins, and he has his business and prospects in general to think about, not the individual guy. So I think he'll have no problem sending Almora to school. But I admit I have to think that the Cubs really could (should?) just toe the line, at slot or $3.0 or whatever. I'd think the same could go for Johnson and McNeil. Underwood seems the only one who really has much strong case for an overslot.

 

It seems conceivable that if they're going super cut-rate on 4-10, and stayed firm with Almora, that they could really have a pretty good chunk of discretionary money to spend on 11-40 guys.

 

I don't expect that, of course. Boras never loses. An individual player means much more to the team than to the agent. For the Cubs to lose out on a top pick who they've talked up so much, that would really hurt. If Boras had Almora go to school, that wold just reaffirm that he's tougher than you and that when he threatens, you better come to him because he really will walk away. So I totally believe that he'll leverage the Cubs into overslot of some magnitude.

 

But part of me thinks that if they held firm, the chances are still pretty good that they'd get him, and could have a chunk of discretionary money later.

[UMFan83]

I don't understand all the complaint that the guys in rounds 6-10 weren't all the best. Why should we expect straight talent order to prevail now when it never did before? Did Dunston go in round 11 and Maples in round 14 based on talent, and all the guys in rounds 2-10 were considered more talented? The landscape has changed, but it's not like dollars and price factors hadn't totally dictated that a lot of guys went outside of talent order before. I don't see much new.

 

I don't think the draft was as fun for me this year. In past, I'd always dream and wish for some big superslot guy, even though it rarely happened. But not a lot of suspense on Day 3 this week. Anybody who looks really exciting can't be signed, more or less.

 

I don't think its a complaint as much as it is mocking the fact that the MLB supposedly made these rules partially so that players were drafted in order of talent and not signability. Everyone knew that wasn't going to happen going in, so there's no surprise that it didnt happen this way at all.

[CyHawk_Cub]

I don't have ESPN Insider, but just spoke w/ a guy who does... He says Keith Law would have Almora as our #1 prospect, even over Rizzo.

[iowahawkeyes89]

I would be really tempted to give Almora slot, and if he doesn't accept, walk away and bank the pick for next year.

 

I really really like Almora, but having two top 10 picks next year would be pretty awesome.

[Guest]

Zimmer to sign for $500,000 below slot per Jim Callis.

[Guest]

I would be really tempted to give Almora slot, and if he doesn't accept, walk away and bank the pick for next year.

 

I really really like Almora, but having two top 10 picks next year would be pretty awesome.

I wouldn't. We aren't talking about an all-time great draft like 2005 or last year, just a draft better than this year. Too much risk and variables to punt - it doesn't always work out as well as it did for Arizona last year (just look at San Diego who went safe with a lesser prospect to ensure the guy signed since they wouldnt get a comp pick again). I doubt Almora would sign for too much over slot in the end, Boras client or not. And I'm sure Theo and company did their due diligence to see just how singable Almora is.

[UMFan83]

I don't expect that, of course. Boras never loses. An individual player means much more to the team than to the agent. For the Cubs to lose out on a top pick who they've talked up so much, that would really hurt. If Boras had Almora go to school, that wold just reaffirm that he's tougher than you and that when he threatens, you better come to him because he really will walk away. So I totally believe that he'll leverage the Cubs into overslot of some magnitude.

 

But part of me thinks that if they held firm, the chances are still pretty good that they'd get him, and could have a chunk of discretionary money later.

 

But if Almora goes to school, couldnt the Cubs frame it as "we really like Almora but with the structure that the new CBA has put into place, it is impossible for us to meet Almora's asking price. Fortunately, with Almora going to school, we will have an extra 1st round pick next year which will contribute greatly to building the next Cubs world series title" or whatever.

 

Its not the ideal scenario, like Raisin pointed out, but the Cubs could certainly spin it in a way that limits the public damage. There will be damage to the organization no doubt, but being able to use that 1st round pick next year is better than just losing it, and gives the Cubs a small amount of leverage in negotiations.