2015 Draft Discussion

[ConstableRabbit]

I don't think Smoltz was ever traded...

 

I am confused.

 

He was rather famously traded from Detroit

Apparently not that famously! I had no idea, but it took place before I was born and far before I started following MLB so I am giving myself a pass.

[Guest]

Thanks, Tim. Kazmir and Cashner hadn't been established as #1s in the majors at the time they were traded. They were potential #1s though. But Josh Beckett checks all the boxes. High draft pedigree (#2 overall), established stud starter in the bigs and was 25 when traded. Perfect. Thanks.

On the other hand, I can't remember a comparable 24 or 25 year old hitter being traded at all.

[Cubswin11]

Thanks, Tim. Kazmir and Cashner hadn't been established as #1s in the majors at the time they were traded. They were potential #1s though. But Josh Beckett checks all the boxes. High draft pedigree (#2 overall), established stud starter in the bigs and was 25 when traded. Perfect. Thanks.

On the other hand, I can't remember a comparable 24 or 25 year old hitter being traded at all.

How old was Miguel Cabrera when he was traded to Detroit? A-Rod to Yankees?

[Guest]

Thanks, Tim. Kazmir and Cashner hadn't been established as #1s in the majors at the time they were traded. They were potential #1s though. But Josh Beckett checks all the boxes. High draft pedigree (#2 overall), established stud starter in the bigs and was 25 when traded. Perfect. Thanks.

On the other hand, I can't remember a comparable 24 or 25 year old hitter being traded at all.

How old was Miguel Cabrera when he was traded to Detroit? A-Rod to Yankees?

Miggy is the example there.

 

ARod may have been young, but he was already in the midst of a $250M contract.

[CubsWin]

Draft the best hitter possible, trade hitters down the road for established pitching when pitching is the last need/hurdle to make a run.

When was the last time someone traded away a young #1 starter? Truly asking. Trying to remember.

 

David Price?

I guess I should have been more specific on what I meant by young. I was thinking like a 24 or 25 year old #1 starter.

I don't think many 24 or 25 #1 starting pitchers, or stud hitters get traded. I think you trade your "surplus" hitting for quality pitching, not superstars.

That was my thinking as well.

 

It has happened twice in the last decade apparently. Latos and Beckett. But that's not nearly often enough for me to make my strategy of obtaining an ace to draft hitters exclusively in the first round and then trade for a #1 later once he's established in the big leagues. So I come back to you need to draft your aces, your #1s. You can still draft hitters exclusively in the 1st round and try to mine/develop an ace type pitcher in rounds 2 and later. You can also forgo having a #1 pitcher who is still inexpensive during his prime and just sign guys in their early 30s (sometimes 29) as free agents to front your rotation.

 

But clearly, it's preferable (by virtue of how often they aren't traded away) to have the young stud ace under team control throughout his prime and relatively inexpensive. That's obvious. The big problem with that is investing the high draft pick in a pitcher and, in this case, one who has already had TJS.

 

Call me a gambler, a dreamer, an optimist or a fool, but I think rolling the dice on someone like Matt Matuella or Brady Aiken with the 9th pick, if they even fall that far, is the way to go. TINSTAPP and TJS be damned. At least with this specific set of circumstances.

 

1. The Cubs are at this point in time historically top heavy and deep with hitting prospects.

2. The Cubs are about to get good and will very likely not have a high draft pick for the foreseeable future.

3. This isn't a good draft for really good college bats.

4. The one thing the Cubs system lacks is a true #1 stud pitching prospect.

 

Given those conditions, I'm for taking a chance on Matuella or Aiken.

[Proven Veteran]

How many #1 pitching prospects are there if CJ Edwards doesn't count? He's been in the top 30-40 overall the last two years.

[CubsWin]

How many #1 pitching prospects are there if CJ Edwards doesn't count? He's been in the top 30-40 overall the last two years.

No scouting report that I can remember calls CJ a #1 starter. They pretty much all consider his ceiling to be a #2 with the floor of a high leverage reliever. In MLB's current top 100, there are 24 pitchers ranked ahead of CJ. Of those 24, a handful are projected to have a ceiling of a true #1 starter, someone who has a decent chance of becoming a top 30 starting pitcher in all of baseball.

 

CJ may be a #1 prospect in the sense that he is the Cubs #1 (top-ranked) pitching prospect, but he's not projected to be a #1 starter in the bigs even at the most optimistic projection. Those guys are Giolito, Bundy, Cole, etc. or already established guys like Kershaw, Price, Zimmerman, etc.

[Guest]

How many #1 pitching prospects are there if CJ Edwards doesn't count? He's been in the top 30-40 overall the last two years.

No scouting report that I can remember calls CJ a #1 starter. They pretty much all consider his ceiling to be a #2 with the floor of a high leverage reliever. In MLB's current top 100, there are 24 pitchers ranked ahead of CJ. Of those 24, a handful are projected to have a ceiling of a true #1 starter, someone who has a decent chance of becoming a top 30 starting pitcher in all of baseball.

 

CJ may be a #1 prospect in the sense that he is the Cubs #1 (top-ranked) pitching prospect, but he's not projected to be a #1 starter in the bigs even at the most optimistic projection. Those guys are Giolito, Bundy, Cole, etc. or already established guys like Kershaw, Price, Zimmerman, etc.

 

When I see discussions like this I tend to get the feeling that we're operating on the silly ass notion that there are like 5-10 "true" #1 starters in all of baseball or something.

[Guest]

There are a number of pitchers every year who place in the top 10, 20 or 30 guys (whatever your definition of a #1) who don't have that pedigree of a #1 pick or big money IFA. Heck, Corey Kluber won the Cy last year and he certainly doesn't have that pedigree. Pitchers add ticks through strengthening or cleaning up deliveries. They add a breaking ball or changeup. They refine command. Guys who seemed pedestrian suddenly become unhittable for a time.

 

With arms, I prefer the approach the Cubs are taking. Get a very high volume of guys whose potential exceeds their current performance and then develop them well. Invest heavily in the development process and then stick a lot of arms into the broad end of the funnel.

 

I'd guess that the Cubs have a couple guys in the system right now that emerge into top of rotation candidates in the future.

[jersey cubs fan]

How many #1 pitching prospects are there if CJ Edwards doesn't count? He's been in the top 30-40 overall the last two years.

No scouting report that I can remember calls CJ a #1 starter. They pretty much all consider his ceiling to be a #2 with the floor of a high leverage reliever. In MLB's current top 100, there are 24 pitchers ranked ahead of CJ. Of those 24, a handful are projected to have a ceiling of a true #1 starter, someone who has a decent chance of becoming a top 30 starting pitcher in all of baseball.

 

CJ may be a #1 prospect in the sense that he is the Cubs #1 (top-ranked) pitching prospect, but he's not projected to be a #1 starter in the bigs even at the most optimistic projection. Those guys are Giolito, Bundy, Cole, etc. or already established guys like Kershaw, Price, Zimmerman, etc.

 

When I see discussions like this I tend to get the feeling that we're operating on the silly ass notion that there are like 5-10 "true" #1 starters in all of baseball or something.

[Proven Veteran]

How many #1 pitching prospects are there if CJ Edwards doesn't count? He's been in the top 30-40 overall the last two years.

No scouting report that I can remember calls CJ a #1 starter. They pretty much all consider his ceiling to be a #2 with the floor of a high leverage reliever. In MLB's current top 100, there are 24 pitchers ranked ahead of CJ. Of those 24, a handful are projected to have a ceiling of a true #1 starter, someone who has a decent chance of becoming a top 30 starting pitcher in all of baseball.

 

CJ may be a #1 prospect in the sense that he is the Cubs #1 (top-ranked) pitching prospect, but he's not projected to be a #1 starter in the bigs even at the most optimistic projection. Those guys are Giolito, Bundy, Cole, etc. or already established guys like Kershaw, Price, Zimmerman, etc.

 

When I see discussions like this I tend to get the feeling that we're operating on the silly ass notion that there are like 5-10 "true" #1 starters in all of baseball or something.

Yep.

[CubsWin]

How many #1 pitching prospects are there if CJ Edwards doesn't count? He's been in the top 30-40 overall the last two years.

No scouting report that I can remember calls CJ a #1 starter. They pretty much all consider his ceiling to be a #2 with the floor of a high leverage reliever. In MLB's current top 100, there are 24 pitchers ranked ahead of CJ. Of those 24, a handful are projected to have a ceiling of a true #1 starter, someone who has a decent chance of becoming a top 30 starting pitcher in all of baseball.

 

CJ may be a #1 prospect in the sense that he is the Cubs #1 (top-ranked) pitching prospect, but he's not projected to be a #1 starter in the bigs even at the most optimistic projection. Those guys are Giolito, Bundy, Cole, etc. or already established guys like Kershaw, Price, Zimmerman, etc.

 

When I see discussions like this I tend to get the feeling that we're operating on the silly ass notion that there are like 5-10 "true" #1 starters in all of baseball or something.

I'd say there are, by definition, about 30 #1 starters in the MLB. Lets say we choose a way to quantify the best pitchers and the guys that fall 25-35 on that list are all pretty much equal. Then, that year, there'd be 35 #1 starters. You can quantify that performance lots of different ways and come up with a different list of guys based on which method you choose, but there will always be around 30. Now there can be several tiers within that 30 or so guys, but the idea of #1 starter for me is by definition a top 30ish starter.

 

So, for me, no I'm not referring to that. Maybe some others are, I don't know. Regardless, CJ Edwards is not projected to be a top 30 starter in all of baseball from the scouting reports I've read. Maybe he will become one, but, right now there are over 20 pitchers ranked ahead of him on the prospects lists alone, so it seems pretty far-fetched to expect him to one day be a consistent top 30 starter in all of baseball.

[CubsWin]

How many #1 pitching prospects are there if CJ Edwards doesn't count? He's been in the top 30-40 overall the last two years.

No scouting report that I can remember calls CJ a #1 starter. They pretty much all consider his ceiling to be a #2 with the floor of a high leverage reliever. In MLB's current top 100, there are 24 pitchers ranked ahead of CJ. Of those 24, a handful are projected to have a ceiling of a true #1 starter, someone who has a decent chance of becoming a top 30 starting pitcher in all of baseball.

 

CJ may be a #1 prospect in the sense that he is the Cubs #1 (top-ranked) pitching prospect, but he's not projected to be a #1 starter in the bigs even at the most optimistic projection. Those guys are Giolito, Bundy, Cole, etc. or already established guys like Kershaw, Price, Zimmerman, etc.

 

When I see discussions like this I tend to get the feeling that we're operating on the silly ass notion that there are like 5-10 "true" #1 starters in all of baseball or something.

Yep.

I think you're over-valuing CJ Edwards. What scouting reports have been referring to him as a #1 starter type, a top 30 pitcher in all of baseball? If you know of one, pass it along. Seriously. I'm a big fan of his and would love to read it. Not sarcastic.

[Guest]

How many #1 pitching prospects are there if CJ Edwards doesn't count? He's been in the top 30-40 overall the last two years.

No scouting report that I can remember calls CJ a #1 starter. They pretty much all consider his ceiling to be a #2 with the floor of a high leverage reliever. In MLB's current top 100, there are 24 pitchers ranked ahead of CJ. Of those 24, a handful are projected to have a ceiling of a true #1 starter, someone who has a decent chance of becoming a top 30 starting pitcher in all of baseball.

 

CJ may be a #1 prospect in the sense that he is the Cubs #1 (top-ranked) pitching prospect, but he's not projected to be a #1 starter in the bigs even at the most optimistic projection. Those guys are Giolito, Bundy, Cole, etc. or already established guys like Kershaw, Price, Zimmerman, etc.

 

When I see discussions like this I tend to get the feeling that we're operating on the silly ass notion that there are like 5-10 "true" #1 starters in all of baseball or something.

I'd say there are, by definition, about 30 #1 starters in the MLB. Lets say we choose a way to quantify the best pitchers and the guys that fall 25-35 on that list are all pretty much equal. Then, that year, there'd be 35 #1 starters. You can quantify that performance lots of different ways and come up with a different list of guys based on which method you choose, but there will always be around 30. Now there can be several tiers within that 30 or so guys, but the idea of #1 starter for me is by definition a top 30ish starter.

 

So, for me, no I'm not referring to that. Maybe some others are, I don't know. Regardless, CJ Edwards is not projected to be a top 30 starter in all of baseball from the scouting reports I've read. Maybe he will become one, but, right now there are over 20 pitchers ranked ahead of him on the prospects lists alone, so it seems pretty far-fetched to expect him to one day be a consistent top 30 starter in all of baseball.

Can you point to the scouting reports that had Kluber as the #2 pitcher in all of baseball behind Kershaw?

 

or #1 potential for Quintana, Shark (arm strength was there, but didn't have the pedigree you're talking about), Zimmerman wasn't viewed that way until recently, King Felix wasn't a huge bonus IFA guy iirc, or Cueto or Teheran, Chris Archer was a fifth rounder, Shields was a 16th rounder, Keuchel was a 7th, Lester was a mid-second, as was Tyson Ross, Roark was a 25th(!) rounder, Buehrle beats that as a 38th round pick. They all finished in the top 30 in pitching fWAR last year.

 

You don't need to draft pitching high to find good pitching.

[CubsWin]

There are a number of pitchers every year who place in the top 10, 20 or 30 guys (whatever your definition of a #1) who don't have that pedigree of a #1 pick or big money IFA. Heck, Corey Kluber won the Cy last year and he certainly doesn't have that pedigree. Pitchers add ticks through strengthening or cleaning up deliveries. They add a breaking ball or changeup. They refine command. Guys who seemed pedestrian suddenly become unhittable for a time.

 

With arms, I prefer the approach the Cubs are taking. Get a very high volume of guys whose potential exceeds their current performance and then develop them well. Invest heavily in the development process and then stick a lot of arms into the broad end of the funnel.

 

I'd guess that the Cubs have a couple guys in the system right now that emerge into top of rotation candidates in the future.

Agreed. To be a top 30 starter, you don't need to be drafted early in the 1st round or a big money IFA. And you can find a guy and help him refine his stuff/command like Arrieta and perhaps unearth a top-30ish guy that way. Lots of ways of getting there.

 

I like the Cubs approach of late as well. I think they've been very smart about it and that it will likely pay off for them down the road. I also like the idea of having a staff made up of guys that would be 2s and 3s on most other teams. In more normalized conditions (where your organization isn't teeming with an historic level of hitting prospects and there's more really good college bats available at pick #9), that's the way I would want the Cubs to go. But this draft is a little different for a couple of reasons. Maybe this year is the exception with the way things are falling out.

[Guest]

Hey, maybe other teams see what the Cubs have been doing and take all the top hitters 1-8. In that case, I'd have no problem going for the inefficiency and grabbing the top arm at 9. But I'd have to have a pitcher rated much higher than the top remaining hitter to take them with that pick. None of the guys we're talking about in this draft are Strasburg that I'd be happy taking them in the first despite the TJS. It's still only an 80-85% recovery rate.

[CubsWin]

How many #1 pitching prospects are there if CJ Edwards doesn't count? He's been in the top 30-40 overall the last two years.

No scouting report that I can remember calls CJ a #1 starter. They pretty much all consider his ceiling to be a #2 with the floor of a high leverage reliever. In MLB's current top 100, there are 24 pitchers ranked ahead of CJ. Of those 24, a handful are projected to have a ceiling of a true #1 starter, someone who has a decent chance of becoming a top 30 starting pitcher in all of baseball.

 

CJ may be a #1 prospect in the sense that he is the Cubs #1 (top-ranked) pitching prospect, but he's not projected to be a #1 starter in the bigs even at the most optimistic projection. Those guys are Giolito, Bundy, Cole, etc. or already established guys like Kershaw, Price, Zimmerman, etc.

 

When I see discussions like this I tend to get the feeling that we're operating on the silly ass notion that there are like 5-10 "true" #1 starters in all of baseball or something.

I'd say there are, by definition, about 30 #1 starters in the MLB. Lets say we choose a way to quantify the best pitchers and the guys that fall 25-35 on that list are all pretty much equal. Then, that year, there'd be 35 #1 starters. You can quantify that performance lots of different ways and come up with a different list of guys based on which method you choose, but there will always be around 30. Now there can be several tiers within that 30 or so guys, but the idea of #1 starter for me is by definition a top 30ish starter.

 

So, for me, no I'm not referring to that. Maybe some others are, I don't know. Regardless, CJ Edwards is not projected to be a top 30 starter in all of baseball from the scouting reports I've read. Maybe he will become one, but, right now there are over 20 pitchers ranked ahead of him on the prospects lists alone, so it seems pretty far-fetched to expect him to one day be a consistent top 30 starter in all of baseball.

Can you point to the scouting reports that had Kluber as the #2 pitcher in all of baseball behind Kershaw?

 

or #1 potential for Quintana, Shark (arm strength was there, but didn't have the pedigree you're talking about), Zimmerman wasn't viewed that way until recently, King Felix wasn't a huge bonus IFA guy iirc, or Cueto or Teheran, Chris Archer was a fifth rounder, Shields was a 16th rounder, Keuchel was a 7th, Lester was a mid-second, as was Tyson Ross, Roark was a 25th(!) rounder, Buehrle beats that as a 38th round pick. They all finished in the top 30 in pitching fWAR last year.

 

You don't need to draft pitching high to find good pitching.

Agreed. Not being a high draft pick doesn't preclude you from being elite at some point in your career. But what I'm wondering is, what are the success rates of the pitchers with the high pedigree that are taken with the high draft pick or signed to a big bonus IFA contract versus the success rates of those that are not? I don't know. If it's equal, then it's clearly not worth the risk. If it isn't equal, then this year, with the draft conditions being what they are and the Cubs organization being where it is, this might be the time to take that risk.

[Guest]

Heck, if we're blowing out our IFA budget again this year, I'd rather they nab a bunch of promising arms that way.

[Guest]

The 9th pick is an asset. I'd rather they use that asset in the most effective way possible instead of worrying about what they already have in the system.

[Guest]

The 9th pick is an asset. I'd rather they use that asset in the most effective way possible instead of worrying about what they already have in the system.

 

BPA is always the way to go, but in baseball it is so the way to go that it's basically outrageous. Need should not even be in the vocabulary.

[Guest]

btw - in reminding myself about the exact draft order this year I also got reminded that three of the teams in the NL central get competitive balance picks this year. StL and MIL both get picks in the 1st supplemental and Cincy gets a 2nd supplemental pick this year.

 

So stupid.

[Proven Veteran]

How many #1 pitching prospects are there if CJ Edwards doesn't count? He's been in the top 30-40 overall the last two years.

No scouting report that I can remember calls CJ a #1 starter. They pretty much all consider his ceiling to be a #2 with the floor of a high leverage reliever. In MLB's current top 100, there are 24 pitchers ranked ahead of CJ. Of those 24, a handful are projected to have a ceiling of a true #1 starter, someone who has a decent chance of becoming a top 30 starting pitcher in all of baseball.

 

CJ may be a #1 prospect in the sense that he is the Cubs #1 (top-ranked) pitching prospect, but he's not projected to be a #1 starter in the bigs even at the most optimistic projection. Those guys are Giolito, Bundy, Cole, etc. or already established guys like Kershaw, Price, Zimmerman, etc.

 

When I see discussions like this I tend to get the feeling that we're operating on the silly ass notion that there are like 5-10 "true" #1 starters in all of baseball or something.

Yep.

I think you're over-valuing CJ Edwards. What scouting reports have been referring to him as a #1 starter type, a top 30 pitcher in all of baseball? If you know of one, pass it along. Seriously. I'm a big fan of his and would love to read it. Not sarcastic.

There should be more than 30 #1 ceiling starters in the minors. Obviously they won't all make it.

[CubsWin]

The 9th pick is an asset. I'd rather they use that asset in the most effective way possible instead of worrying about what they already have in the system.

BPA is always the way to go, but in baseball it is so the way to go that it's basically outrageous. Need should not even be in the vocabulary.

"Need", if you want to call it that, was only one of a variety of conditions, the icing on the cake or tiebreaking condition, if you will. And it was only listed because of the extremes involved. Extremes in the current make-up of the organization that are historic in nature. The other conditions like if there aren't any very good college bats available and no other non-injured pitchers the Cubs like better are all about BPA. Ignoring them is misrepresenting my post and creating somewhat of a strawman.

 

Some posters here were jumping on the "no pitchers, ever" bandwagon, and I'm not sold on that dismissive statement. I believe, given the right conditions, taking a pitcher with a top ten pick, even an injured pitcher, could be the best use of that asset. I believe Matuella or Aiken would be the BPA given the conditions I listed. MLB currently has them ranked 5th and 6th, rankings that take into account their recent injuries, so, at this point, they agree. Plus, since the injuries and subsequent surgeries happened in March, there might even be some data as to how their surgeries went and some early medical results for teams to go on by the time of the draft in early June.

 

Perhaps I'm out on an island on this one, and sure as hell could be wrong, but I'm not dismissing them as possibilities just yet.

 

Edited to correct spelling.

Edited April 4, 2015 by CubsWin

[CubsWin]

There should be more than 30 #1 ceiling starters in the minors. Obviously they won't all make it.

There should? What data leads you to believe that? Is that for every season or just at this point in time?

[Guest]

yup, what hitter can we target in the first?

 

Trenton Clark, Ian Happ, D.J. Stewart.

 

Chris Shaw, Boston College. This year's Schwarber, complete with defensive position questions.

 

Does no one mention Dansby because they don't think he's going to be there for the Cub's pick? If the Cubs passed him up I'd be livid.

 

I think he's locked into the top 5, given a) how many pitchers have gotten hurt and b) how rare college players who can stick at SS in the pros are (they get overdrafted like QBs in the NFL Draft; not that I think Dansby in the top 5 is an overdraft).

 

Just out of curiosity, what makes you think Fulmer's best case scenario is a reliever other than size? Granted he's only averaging 6IP per start, but that's not too bad when you're putting up a 12.86K/9.

 

As toonster pointed out, it's the extremely high effort delivery. It appear to be a common opinion amongst when scouts are quoted. I'm certainly not saying it's his best case scenario - there certainly is a chance he can tone things down and remain a starter - just that that's where most have him pegged as a pro.