2014 Cubs Pick Discussion

[davell]

This draft was considered weak at the top, but very deep. The Cubs got the best college bat, who also has the most power by a wide margin, with their top pick. After watching all 3 of the consensus top guys taken in front of them.

 

They proceeded to draft TWELVE top 200 talents after that. Not counting Martarano, who was the previous year as well.

 

In that group includes a guy(Cease) who may have went in the top 10, if not for injury. The top 10 round guys all appear as if they'll sign. Included is a C and 5 pitchers-all needs.

 

Outside the top 10, only Brink is a college kid, likely the easiest to sign. 2 Catchers-Adams and Cantu are both serious needs, 2 power bats in Gilliam and Peters, and another pitcher, in Deppermann.

 

If you get the entire top 10, Martarano, one of the C and one of the OF outside the top 10, with Brink and Deppermann-it's one hell of a haul. I love the approach this draft.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

All I'm saying is that I was holding on to the slim, slim hope that maybe the public consensus was wrong and there were half a dozen teams inside baseball hot after Kyle Schwarber as the 4th-best talent and the bonus would reflect that. "Hooray, he's confirmed a mediocre underslot" doesn't cause me to celebrate.

 

As far as a dozen top-200 draft prospects, hooray, I guess. There's roughly 5 years worth of prospects in the minors at any given time. The draft makes up half the prospects in each year, with IFAs making up the other half. So "top-200 draft prospect" is just a fancy way of saying "Top-2000 prospect."

[Little Slide Rooter]

All I'm saying is that I was holding on to the slim, slim hope that maybe the public consensus was wrong and there were half a dozen teams inside baseball hot after Kyle Schwarber as the 4th-best talent and the bonus would reflect that. "Hooray, he's confirmed a mediocre underslot" doesn't cause me to celebrate.

 

As far as a dozen top-200 draft prospects, hooray, I guess. There's roughly 5 years worth of prospects in the minors at any given time. The draft makes up half the prospects in each year, with IFAs making up the other half. So "top-200 draft prospect" is just a fancy way of saying "Top-2000 prospect."

 

I disagree. He's essentially Kris Bryant light, sans the Boras factor. He's a bat only guy who came out of nowhere to become a top 5 pick. There's no point in playing hard to get, as he's at the age where even if he did go back to school, one off season would be the difference between top 5 underslot money and slightly overslot 12th round. Cubs had all the leverage here.

[Guest]

All I'm saying is that I was holding on to the slim, slim hope that maybe the public consensus was wrong and there were half a dozen teams inside baseball hot after Kyle Schwarber as the 4th-best talent and the bonus would reflect that. "Hooray, he's confirmed a mediocre underslot" doesn't cause me to celebrate.

 

As far as a dozen top-200 draft prospects, hooray, I guess. There's roughly 5 years worth of prospects in the minors at any given time. The draft makes up half the prospects in each year, with IFAs making up the other half. So "top-200 draft prospect" is just a fancy way of saying "Top-2000 prospect."

 

Said this at PSD, but if you're holding on to a slim, slim hope of something, wouldn't it make more sense to hope that our highly regarded front office and scouting guys are smarter than those other ones and got a steal on an undervalued player?

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Said this at PSD, but if you're holding on to a slim, slim hope of something, wouldn't it make more sense to hope that our highly regarded front office and scouting guys are smarter than those other ones and got a steal on an undervalued player?

 

I'm still holding on to that one. I've got half my hope.

[craig]

….I disagree. He's essentially Kris Bryant light, sans the Boras factor. He's a bat only guy who came out of nowhere to become a top 5 pick. There's no point in playing hard to get, as he's at the age where even if he did go back to school, one off season would be the difference between top 5 underslot money and slightly overslot 12th round. Cubs had all the leverage here.

 

We can wish. But the "light" part might be the key there. This guy is not much at all like Kris Bryant, other than that the Cubs drafted both from college.

 

Bryant hit 31 HR's last year, Schwarber 13 this year. That's kind of a big difference! If you took away 2/3 of Bryant's HR, I'm not sure how popular Bryant would be?

 

Schwarber may well be the best power-hitting guy available in the college ranks this year. But Bryant's HR hitting is kind of unique.

[Guest]

….I disagree. He's essentially Kris Bryant light, sans the Boras factor. He's a bat only guy who came out of nowhere to become a top 5 pick. There's no point in playing hard to get, as he's at the age where even if he did go back to school, one off season would be the difference between top 5 underslot money and slightly overslot 12th round. Cubs had all the leverage here.

 

We can wish. But the "light" part might be the key there. This guy is not much at all like Kris Bryant, other than that the Cubs drafted both from college.

 

Bryant hit 31 HR's last year, Schwarber 13 this year. That's kind of a big difference! If you took away 2/3 of Bryant's HR, I'm not sure how popular Bryant would be?

 

Schwarber may well be the best power-hitting guy available in the college ranks this year. But Bryant's HR hitting is kind of unique.

 

Yeah, what Bryant did in college last year was otherworldly. Out of curiosity, how did their competition compare?

 

Anyway, that said, Schwarber is also different in that he should K a lot less.

[Guest]

All I'm saying is that I was holding on to the slim, slim hope that maybe the public consensus was wrong and there were half a dozen teams inside baseball hot after Kyle Schwarber as the 4th-best talent and the bonus would reflect that. "Hooray, he's confirmed a mediocre underslot" doesn't cause me to celebrate.

 

As far as a dozen top-200 draft prospects, hooray, I guess. There's roughly 5 years worth of prospects in the minors at any given time. The draft makes up half the prospects in each year, with IFAs making up the other half. So "top-200 draft prospect" is just a fancy way of saying "Top-2000 prospect."

Or...it confirms that maybe the Cubs emphasize different things in a prospect than the other teams at the top of the draft. Frankly, I'm pretty happy that they're looking for the best college bat available and going after it.

[sneakypower]

where are people getting this bizarre idea that Schwarber is some offensive monster?

 

his college numbers are about identical to what guys like Tony Sanchez & Jeff Clement did, and the scouting consensus isn't really all that enamored with him, either

[Guest]

You're the contact rate guy, you should spot that Schwarber's had much better strike zone control than those two. Clement and Sanchez also put up their numbers pre-BBCOR.

 

That said, I don't think Schwarber is some sure-fire offensive monster, Bryant has spoiled us to the expectations for bat-first college draftees in the top of the first round. It sure looks like Schwarber will hit though.

[Schmidt]

I think Tim hit it with the first comment in that last post. I think they have developed their own set of criteria based on what they want, and that may well be very different from the general industry perspective. Every team does this to a degree, but I like the particular approach this FO takes. They seem to view a few traits as better investments, and pitchers mostly as lottery tickets (esp. HS pitchers), and they select those lottery ticket at lower leverage positions in the draft, where the return on investment can be higher and where it doesn't hurt nearly as much if/when TINSTAPP rears its ugly head.

[HendryWallet]

IIRC, the Big 10 features many parks that are pitcher friendly

 

A decent comparison for Schwarber might be Kevin Plawecki, a C in the Mets org. currently in AA. He was drafted in the first round in 2012 out of Purdue...

 

Here's his stats his last year at Purdue...

http://grfx.cstv.com/photos/schools/pur/sports/m-basebl/auto_pdf/2011-12/misc_non_event/PUR-BSBstatpack2012.pdf

 

 

Currently in Double A...

http://www.milb.com/milb/stats/stats.jsp?sid=milb&t=p_pbp&pid=608700

 

 

and note Schwarber has much more power

[apete6]

IIRC, the Big 10 features many parks that are pitcher friendly

 

Not to mention that it was 32 degrees for most of the college baseball season. That being said, the quality of competition isn't as strong as the Pac 12, SEC or other warm weather conferences.

[HendryWallet]

IIRC, the Big 10 features many parks that are pitcher friendly

 

Not to mention that it was 32 degrees for most of the college baseball season. That being said, the quality of competition isn't as strong as the Pac 12, SEC or other warm weather conferences.

 

What conference is San Diego in?

[apete6]

IIRC, the Big 10 features many parks that are pitcher friendly

 

Not to mention that it was 32 degrees for most of the college baseball season. That being said, the quality of competition isn't as strong as the Pac 12, SEC or other warm weather conferences.

 

What conference is San Diego in?

 

WCC probably, which, though I know much less than I should about college baseball, probably isn't much worse than the B1G.

[Guest]

One man's take on how things went down.

[davell]

One man's take on how things went down.

 

Agree completely. Armchair QB'ing it afterwards though, I'd have rather taken Reid-Foley in the 2nd(signed for 1.128) and if we missed on Stinnett, just take Brink much earlier. Very, very likely we could have still signed our entire 1st 10 rounds with Reid-Foley and Brink instead of Stinnett and Thorpe.....

[RammyFanny]

where are people getting this bizarre idea that Schwarber is some offensive monster?

 

his college numbers are about identical to what guys like Tony Sanchez & Jeff Clement did, and the scouting consensus isn't really all that enamored with him, either

If we're doing random statistical comparisons, his college numbers are also an exact replica of Evan Longoria's as well.

[Tyrant]

None of which means I can't be disappointed

 

Just tattoo this on your [expletive] forehead.

[CubsWin]

All I'm saying is that I was holding on to the slim, slim hope that maybe the public consensus was wrong and there were half a dozen teams inside baseball hot after Kyle Schwarber as the 4th-best talent and the bonus would reflect that. "Hooray, he's confirmed a mediocre underslot" doesn't cause me to celebrate.

 

As far as a dozen top-200 draft prospects, hooray, I guess. There's roughly 5 years worth of prospects in the minors at any given time. The draft makes up half the prospects in each year, with IFAs making up the other half. So "top-200 draft prospect" is just a fancy way of saying "Top-2000 prospect."

Sorry, Kyle, you're just wrong on this one.

 

I'm not going to comment on what size your hope should be that the Cubs front office thinking is better or worse than "public consensus". That's completely subjective and everyone can hold their own opinions there. But where are you getting this half dozen number? Schwarber's $3.125 million falls in between 8th and 9th slot value. The highest Schwarber was mocked was 8th to the Rockies, and it happened with consistency as the draft picture gained focus. There's a slight chance he could've gone lower, but both the June 3rd Law mock and the last Callis mock had him going 8th. That's 4 picks after the Cubs, not 6.

 

You can call him a mediocre underslot if you want, but who was better when you consider a player's floor? Who checked more boxes when you consider what Theo & Co. value (control of the strike zone, hit tool, power, mental make-up)? All the pitchers available at that spot had question marks and just by virtue of being pitchers were more risky than a college hitter that can hit, hit for power and has an excellent approach. Of the players that were drafted immediately after Schwarber (Gordon, Jackson, Nola, Freeland, Hoffman and Conforto), who stands out as the clearly better choice when we consider floor? When taken in context, Schwarber looks like the best, safest, most undervalued prospect available with equal or better likelihood of succeeding as a hitter at the major league level who by selecting would also allow the Cubs to take 3 upside prep arms instead of one or none. Calling him a "mediocre underslot" is excluding the context.

 

In a draft that fell off in upside after the first three players chosen and was deep in talented high school arms (risky and thus should be taken in numbers to mitigate that), would you have preferred to draft Gordon or Jackson at slot and not have the money to go after 3 upside prep arms? Would you have preferred to take a stab in the dark at maybe just one of them or cover your bets by having three? We both know the attrition and fail rates of prospects. Would you have wanted to take a risky/question marked or injured pitcher with the 4th pick and then follow it up with more risk later on? Or would you have preferred making sure you get the best value you can get in the 1st round and save money to get more value in picks 4-6? This is the real world context. Your comments are being made as if all of this happened in a vacuum.

 

And as far as the top 200 draft prospect equaling a top 2000 prospect? Your math/logic, if indeed you used any in that statement, is just dumb. You're better than that.

[A New Era]

One man's take on how things went down.

 

http://i.imgur.com/SeXgJGp.jpg

 

Good article that I pretty much agree with.

Edited June 11, 2014 by A New Era

[CubsWin]

One man's take on how things went down.

Nice job, Tim.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

And as far as the top 200 draft prospect equaling a top 2000 prospect? Your math/logic, if indeed you used any in that statement, is just dumb. You're better than that.

 

As for the other stuff, I didn't once say I wanted them to draft someone different.

 

As for this, where would place the average 200th best draft prospect in the overall MLB prospect rankings?

[Guest]

And as far as the top 200 draft prospect equaling a top 2000 prospect? Your math/logic, if indeed you used any in that statement, is just dumb. You're better than that.

 

As for the other stuff, I didn't once say I wanted them to draft someone different.

 

As for this, where would place the average 200th best draft prospect in the overall MLB prospect rankings?

Well, most players in the minors have already proven they will never make the majors. So closer to 200 than 2000.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

And as far as the top 200 draft prospect equaling a top 2000 prospect? Your math/logic, if indeed you used any in that statement, is just dumb. You're better than that.

 

As for the other stuff, I didn't once say I wanted them to draft someone different.

 

As for this, where would place the average 200th best draft prospect in the overall MLB prospect rankings?

Well, most players in the minors have already proven they will never make the majors. So closer to 200 than 2000.

 

That's still a pretty broad range.