Edwin Jackson Signs w/ Cubs: 4 years/$52 M

[davell]

I'm so used to disagreeing with you, that even when we're on the same side(willing to punt the 2nd) I'm finding things to argue. Each draft is different(no [expletive], huh?). Hard to just look at a singular slot(41) and use it in that way. The new slotting system changes the general way of picking players somewhat now. Every team is spending their allotment basically, players have no choice but be fairly reasonable in their demands(Appel be damned) so players are getting picked more in line with talent now, instead of signability. The truly unsignable guys are falling to round 11 now, where the pick value won't hurt a teams budget. Scouting is more extensive now too, teams get more looks at players by beefing up their personnel. Which, in theory, should lead to less mistakes. I think I'd look at it more from this angle: At pick 41, we're likely to get a top 30 guy on our board. The question is whether this draft(considered weak) is strong enough to where you think that top 30 guy is worth not signing Bourn over and maybe giving up a Junior Lake and Trey McNutt to get Coco Crisp instead.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

The value of the pick varies from year to year, sure, but it's still so small that it doesn't approach the value of a good MLB player that you want on your roster.

[davell]

The value of the pick varies from year to year, sure, but it's still so small that it doesn't approach the value of a good MLB player that you want on your roster.

I'm not arguing that one bit. I do wonder though, if Bourn is a much better option than Crisp, once all factors are considered.

[Guest]

Lance McCullers was the 41st pick in 2012. There is definitely trade value with the 41st pick unless you completely whiff (Hayden Simpson) or he gets immediate arm problems (Asher Wojiechowski who was the 41st pick in 2010).

 

Jackie Bradley was the 40th pick in 2011. Taijuan Walker was 43rd and Nick Castellanos 44th in 2010.

 

ETA: I would sign Bourne to a 5-year deal, I just feel like Kyle is underselling a 2nd round pick's valueby just looking at historical success rates.

[jersey cubs fan]

The value of the pick varies from year to year, sure, but it's still so small that it doesn't approach the value of a good MLB player that you want on your roster.

 

Yes, but that value has to be considered in addition to the money you have to spend on that player you want in the first place. It's not the negligible value which you've described.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

The value of the pick varies from year to year, sure, but it's still so small that it doesn't approach the value of a good MLB player that you want on your roster.

 

Yes, but that value has to be considered in addition to the money you have to spend on that player you want in the first place. It's not the negligible value which you've described.

 

It's pretty close to negligible.

[Tryptamine]

Lance McCullers was the 41st pick in 2012. There is definitely trade value with the 41st pick unless you completely whiff (Hayden Simpson) or he gets immediate arm problems (Asher Wojiechowski who was the 41st pick in 2010).

 

Jackie Bradley was the 40th pick in 2011. Taijuan Walker was 43rd and Nick Castellanos 44th in 2010.

 

ETA: I would sign Bourne to a 5-year deal, I just feel like Kyle is underselling a 2nd round pick's valueby just looking at historical success rates.

 

I posted this on PSD, but I'll bring it over here too. These guys were all picked between 33-45 between 2009-2011

 

Aaron Sanchez(49), Bryce Brentz, Noah Syndergaard(40), Taijuan Walker(5), Nick Castellanos(19), Henry Owens(119), Jackie Bradley(36), Trevor Story(60), James Paxton(57), Tyler Skaggs(20), Matt Davidson, Brad Boxberger, Rex Brothers, Tanner Scheppers.

 

That is a ton of talent and way too much not to factor in when deciding to sign a guy like Bourn or not.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

I posted this on PSD, but I'll bring it over here too. These guys were all picked between 33-45 between 2009-2011

 

Aaron Sanchez(49), Bryce Brentz, Noah Syndergaard(40), Taijuan Walker(5), Nick Castellanos(19), Henry Owens(119), Jackie Bradley(36), Trevor Story(60), James Paxton(57), Tyler Skaggs(20), Matt Davidson, Brad Boxberger, Rex Brothers, Tanner Scheppers.

 

That is a ton of talent and way too much not to factor in when deciding to sign a guy like Bourn or not.

 

 

A 25% chance to get a "top-120" prospect does not sound that impressive to me.

[Tryptamine]

I posted this on PSD, but I'll bring it over here too. These guys were all picked between 33-45 between 2009-2011

 

Aaron Sanchez(49), Bryce Brentz, Noah Syndergaard(40), Taijuan Walker(5), Nick Castellanos(19), Henry Owens(119), Jackie Bradley(36), Trevor Story(60), James Paxton(57), Tyler Skaggs(20), Matt Davidson, Brad Boxberger, Rex Brothers, Tanner Scheppers.

 

That is a ton of talent and way too much not to factor in when deciding to sign a guy like Bourn or not.

 

 

A 25% chance to get a "top-120" prospect does not sound that impressive to me.

 

You're using that 119 a little to loosely, why don't we just ignore Owens. Doing that we see you have an 22.2% chance to land one of the top 60 prospects in baseball. Sounds a whole lot more impressive doesn't it?

[Hairyducked Idiot]

You're using that 119 a little to loosely, why don't we just ignore Owens. Doing that we see you have an 22.2% chance to land one of the top 60 prospects in baseball. Sounds a whole lot more impressive doesn't it?

 

Still not that impressed. A 1-in-5 chance at getting a 1-in4ish chance at a useful major leaguer.

 

I'll just take the major leaguer, even if it costs me some money.

[Tryptamine]

You're using that 119 a little to loosely, why don't we just ignore Owens. Doing that we see you have an 22.2% chance to land one of the top 60 prospects in baseball. Sounds a whole lot more impressive doesn't it?

 

Still not that impressed. A 1-in-5 chance at getting a 1-in4ish chance at a useful major leaguer.

 

I'll just take the major leaguer, even if it costs me some money.

 

I'm not sure why you keep insisting they have to be a useful major leaguer. All they need to do is become a useful asset. Is Baez currently a useful major leaguer? No. Does he still have significant value? Yes. Bobby Hill was certainly never a useful major leaguer but he was a tremendously valuable asset.

[SouthSideRyan]

How many of those guys would still be available at that spot with the current slotting system?

[Hairyducked Idiot]

I'm not sure why you keep insisting they have to be a useful major leaguer. All they need to do is become a useful asset. Is Baez currently a useful major leaguer? No. Does he still have significant value? Yes. Bobby Hill was certainly never a useful major leaguer but he was a tremendously valuable asset.

 

Because the odds of them becoming a useful MLBer are inextricably tied to their trade value. Teams don't trade for prospects because they are shiny and cool. They trade for them because they have a chance to be major leaguers someday.

[davell]

How many of those guys would still be available at that spot with the current slotting system?

Castellanos is the only one that fell due to signability concern. He fell into same range as McCullers did though. To where if a team wanted to move money around, he'd still be signable. I figure there will probably be a couple of cases like this each year.

[davell]

Round figures for our slots in 2013(close anyway). 6.2, 1.3, .660, .445, .333, .249, .187, .147, .137, and .128. We'll have around 490k in overslot money at the 5% cap as well. Keeping the 2nd rounder COULD allow you to get 3 top 30-40 types, if you're willing to punt away your 6-10 round picks. Maybe take a slight under at 4 or 5 as well. I guess it just depends on how the draft sets up on an individual year obviously, but with the depth we already have, if we kept the 2nd this year, I could see us going for the bigger impact and less quantity approach.

[Bull]

I am a little surprised that no one has created a rating system to determine the cutoff point of risk and reward in these matters. (an x-war average player is worth losing the 40th overall pick but not the 39th overall pick)

 

Would the Cubs computer model do things like this? I'd imagine the variance is huge.

[jersey cubs fan]

I'm not sure why you keep insisting they have to be a useful major leaguer. All they need to do is become a useful asset. Is Baez currently a useful major leaguer? No. Does he still have significant value? Yes. Bobby Hill was certainly never a useful major leaguer but he was a tremendously valuable asset.

 

Because the odds of them becoming a useful MLBer are inextricably tied to their trade value. Teams don't trade for prospects because they are shiny and cool. They trade for them because they have a chance to be major leaguers someday.

 

Yes, a chance. But they don't actually have to become useful major leaguers to maintain value as a trade asset for multiple years before actually never being a useful major leaguer.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

I'm not sure why you keep insisting they have to be a useful major leaguer. All they need to do is become a useful asset. Is Baez currently a useful major leaguer? No. Does he still have significant value? Yes. Bobby Hill was certainly never a useful major leaguer but he was a tremendously valuable asset.

 

Because the odds of them becoming a useful MLBer are inextricably tied to their trade value. Teams don't trade for prospects because they are shiny and cool. They trade for them because they have a chance to be major leaguers someday.

 

Yes, a chance. But they don't actually have to become useful major leaguers to maintain value as a trade asset for multiple years before actually never being a useful major leaguer.

 

That doesn't change the value of the pick or the player taken there.

 

If you have a bond that has a 25% chance of being worth $100 and a 75% chance of being worth $0, and you sell it for $25, you haven't increased or decreased the expected value of the bond.

[Guest]

I'm not sure why you keep insisting they have to be a useful major leaguer. All they need to do is become a useful asset. Is Baez currently a useful major leaguer? No. Does he still have significant value? Yes. Bobby Hill was certainly never a useful major leaguer but he was a tremendously valuable asset.

 

Because the odds of them becoming a useful MLBer are inextricably tied to their trade value. Teams don't trade for prospects because they are shiny and cool. They trade for them because they have a chance to be major leaguers someday.

 

Yes, a chance. But they don't actually have to become useful major leaguers to maintain value as a trade asset for multiple years before actually never being a useful major leaguer.

 

That doesn't change the value of the pick or the player taken there.

 

If you have a bond that has a 25% chance of being worth $100 and a 75% chance of being worth $0, and you sell it for $25, you haven't increased or decreased the expected value of the bond.

 

Luckily, not every team is all that great at determining what that $25 is worth (or that the figure is even $25). Prospects are probably overvalued.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Luckily, not every team is all that great at determining what that $25 is worth (or that the figure is even $25). Prospects are probably overvalued.

 

The same is true for free agents.

 

I'm having trouble believing that prospects are so severely misvalued that we can just make a killing by trading our second-round picks after a year or two in the minors.

 

But really, are prospects overvalued? By fans, sure. Especially Cubs fans right now. But look at what Arizona and Kansas City got for their prospects.

[davell]

Kyle, I think you're trying to assign a set value to something that there's not enough data on to do that. The landscape was changed by the CBA in some ways. Less signability guys will be going in front of that pick range. Teams have amped up their scouting quite a bit as well, conceivably allowing for better success rates as well. Plus, there is nothing being accounted for, for the extra monetary advantage it gives you. Hell, you could sign a 10k guy and spread the rest of the 1.3 mill over 3-4 other spots, to enhance your chances and get guys that have dropped somewhat for whatever reason that were all still high on your personal board. Nothing is set up to allow for certain teams to still be better than most either(even if everyone has improved). Bottom line though is its too early and too different of a landscape to just arbitrarily assign percentage values at this, in my mind.

[davell]

Kyle, I'm waaaaaay too lazy to reply to your PSD post you singled Olt out on, ignoring everything mentioned here. Tenacity, sticktoitiveness, Kyle's posting tool is plus-plus.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Kyle, I'm waaaaaay too lazy to reply to your PSD post you singled Olt out on, ignoring everything mentioned here. Tenacity, sticktoitiveness, Kyle's posting tool is plus-plus.

 

I just wasn't sure how to respond to it. If the draft is so different now that everything that came before is meaningless, then there's not much for us to go on.

 

If anything, I suspect that the changes make the non-first picks even less important. You aren't going to have many useful talents slip when they cost a lot less to sign.

[davell]

I think maybe now, you actually take a top 100 pre-draft list(using only guys that have signed, and try to assimilate how many of those guys have value moving forward a year or two. There's not a right way to look at this right now. Its just too soon to truly see the effect of the new CBA yet. I think the way you're looking at it IS going to be the correct way to gauge things, I just don't think we have the proper amount of info to do it yet. May be why so many teams have been this cautious with FA so far. No one has a true feel yet.

[jersey cubs fan]

Kyle, I'm waaaaaay too lazy to reply to your PSD post you singled Olt out on, ignoring everything mentioned here. Tenacity, sticktoitiveness, Kyle's posting tool is plus-plus.

 

I just wasn't sure how to respond to it. If the draft is so different now that everything that came before is meaningless, then there's not much for us to go on.

 

If anything, I suspect that the changes make the non-first picks even less important. You aren't going to have many useful talents slip when they cost a lot less to sign.

 

My guess is you'd see the 50 best taken in the top 50 now instead of having a handful of those guys slip into the later rounds for signability reasons. It should strengthen the first 2 rounds and do away with a lot of guys who were overdrafted just because the better players wouldn't be signable.