2014 Cubs Pick Discussion

[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.

That's still a pretty broad range.

Fair enough. As they enter the minors a #200 ranked draftee would probably be around #1000 overall in the minors, as a rough guess.

 

What we are complimenting, though, is the overall draft strategy. As you know as well as anyone, the draft is a numbers game. The more highly ranked players you can bring in the better. And the talent pyramid makes this extremely non-linear. I'd much much much rather have one #1 talent than a dozen scattered from #10 - 200.

 

but I'd also vastly prefer to have 12 guys with a real chance than 4 - 6, as most teams will have coming out of this draft.

[davell]

Schwarber-17

Sands-53

Stinnett-67

Cease-77(possible top 10 pre-injury)

Norwood-79

Zagunis-111

Peters-112(unlikely to sign ?)

Steele-122

Gilliam-132(unlikely to sign)

Martarano-149(last year)

Adams-154(? Sign)

Cantu-161(? Sign)

Brink-164

Deppermann-192(? Sign)

Bass-165 by MLB(unlikely sign ?)

 

Nothing close to lumping all these guys in as the equivalent of the actual 200 number.

 

5 of top 79

8 of top 122

14 of top 165(counting Bass)

 

I think it's pretty excellent personally. Especially if we get 11-12 of the group, which is certainly possible.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

I just can't care that much after the first few picks. If we called around and offered like Nate Schierholtz and picking up his salary, we could probably get a half-dozen of these "back of the top 1000" prospects or whatever. They are less than the throw-ins you get for being nice and sending some AAA roster-fill to a team that doesn't have the right roster-fill at the moment.

[Guest]

I just can't care that much after the first few picks. If we called around and offered like Nate Schierholtz and picking up his salary, we could probably get a half-dozen of these "back of the top 1000" prospects or whatever. They are less than the throw-ins you get for being nice and sending some AAA roster-fill to a team that doesn't have the right roster-fill at the moment.

No.

[davell]

I just can't care that much after the first few picks. If we called around and offered like Nate Schierholtz and picking up his salary, we could probably get a half-dozen of these "back of the top 1000" prospects or whatever. They are less than the throw-ins you get for being nice and sending some AAA roster-fill to a team that doesn't have the right roster-fill at the moment.

 

Cease means nothing here because of TJS, correct?

[craig]

Schwarber-17

...

Peters-112(unlikely to sign ?)

....

 

Just a note, the Peters the Cubs drafted, DJ the outfielder, was ranked 196.

 

The Peters at 112, Dillon the LHP, was drafted in the 7th round by Texas.

 

The impression I got from the notes was that DJ may not be real schoolish.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

I just can't care that much after the first few picks. If we called around and offered like Nate Schierholtz and picking up his salary, we could probably get a half-dozen of these "back of the top 1000" prospects or whatever. They are less than the throw-ins you get for being nice and sending some AAA roster-fill to a team that doesn't have the right roster-fill at the moment.

 

Cease means nothing here because of TJS, correct?

 

He means about as much as any other non-elite HS/teenage IFA arm. Throw a dozen into the blender of the low minors and maybe one or two will surface in AA worth caring about.

[davell]

If you're considered a possible top 10 pick, pre-injury, I think it's safe to call him elite myself.

[ScrubMD]

If you're considered a possible top 10 pick, pre-injury, I think it's safe to call him elite myself.

 

Nope, MLB.com says 77. He'll be the 77th best player in the draft. That's not elite.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

If you're considered a possible top 10 pick, pre-injury, I think it's safe to call him elite myself.

 

He *was* elite. The injury lowers his value significantly.

[CubsWin]

If you're considered a possible top 10 pick, pre-injury, I think it's safe to call him elite myself.

 

He *was* elite. The injury lowers his value significantly.

At the time of the draft, yes. But once he heals, according to historical data, he's got an 80% chance or better of being what he was before the injury. If a player's value were locked in time as to what it was when he was drafted then your point would hold up.

 

Man, today, your glass isn't even half empty. It's bone dry.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

That whole "80% to be good as new" stuff is overstated. And he's got a very high chance of needing TJS again within seven years or so, which would be right in the middle of his important years if he turned into anything.

 

It's just silly how once a year we get all hot-and-bothered over these future roster-fills, then later nobody will remember that they ever cared about Josh Conway or Chadd Krist or Corbin Hoffner.

[craig]

That whole "80% to be good as new" stuff is overstated. ....

 

Where does that 80% thing come from?

 

It's one thing to come back. It's another to come back uncompromised. I don't think 50% come back with the same command they used to have, and not everybody even gets their velocity back.

[Guest]

Chris Crawford reviews the Cubs draft: http://www.drafttotheshow.com/draft-review-cubs/

[davell]

For those not following Yagyu's tracker, here's where we stand....

 

Signed

1- Schwarber(Junior)C

3- Zagunis(Junior)C

11- Brink(Junior)P

12-Griggs(JC)P

13-Mitchell(HS)3B

16-Vosler(junior)SS

20-Tomasavich(senior)SS

25-Pearson(senior)C

27-Graves-CF(senior)CF

 

Positive notes(seem like they're signing)

2-Stinnett

4-Sands

5-Steele

7-Williams

8-Thorpe

9-Farris

10-Williams

15-Null

19-Markey

(All pitchers)

21-White OF

22-Martarano-3B

 

Lots of undecided comments on others, only negative actually is 23rd rounder OF Gilliam, as McLeod mentioned we're not likely to sign him.

 

Nothing of note on Cease, other than his Twitter feed talking about he doesn't need school and a classmate asking for money. But nothing of any substance.

[craig]

Thanks for update, dave. Nice to see Brink in. I wonder if he just wanted the $100K and wanted to get moving, so signed for slot? Or if he got a little extra?

 

I'd guess a lot of signings will get reports in the next several days.

1. I'm sure it takes a little time to get physicals arranged and have signings made official. So my guess is a number of guys have headed or are heading to Arizona to get all that stuff wrapped up.

2. With Boise starting this weekend, college slot guys will want to get going.

3. Often guys have signed without it being in the media, but we first realize when Az Phil or somebody reports seeing them in Mesa, or they just show up on a roster or in a game once the games get started.

 

4. They may punch through the "just-get-it-done" easy signings first, and perhaps anybody in the organization can handle those, without needing attention from McLeod or Hoyer or Theo getting involved. But Hoyer is going to be involved with Sands, Cease, guys like that, or 3rd-day overslots like DJ Peters or whomever. John Knighton, not that complicated if it's a straight slot offer.

 

May be that with Schwarber signed, that will open up overslot negotiations, too.

5. Perhaps some have been agreed upon, but just haven't been signed. AFter two summers dealing with Boras, they've probably established a policy of never finalizing and submitting an overslot and going into penalty mode, even if you expect some other signing will pull you out. Only submit/announce overslots when you've got the existing space.

6. Hoyer has to put work in. If he was focusing his work hours on Schwarber, perhaps he wasn't talking hard with Sands. But with Schwarber done, he can redirect attention.

7. A finalized deal firms up the money situation. A draft-night phone call can sort of establish what a kid wants. But it's not a signed contract, it may not be precise, and parents/agents can get greedy and change their tune. For example, HOyer might come out of Boras/Bryant pre-draft discussions thinking they've agreed at 90% slot; but Boras has all the leverage and can change his story and say full-slot or no deal. So, whatever they thought they'd agreed on with Schwarber or Sands, having the guy actually signed for that is freeing.

[Tyrant]

Chris Crawford reviews the Cubs draft: http://www.drafttotheshow.com/draft-review-cubs/

 

So he raves about The Cubs picks after the first 3 rounds, hates the Schwarber pick, but doesn't acknowledge that the two are related?

[weis21]

Chris Crawford reviews the Cubs draft: http://www.drafttotheshow.com/draft-review-cubs/

 

So he raves about The Cubs picks after the first 3 rounds, hates the Schwarber pick, but doesn't acknowledge that the two are related?

My thoughts exactly.

[abohnhoff]

Chris Crawford reviews the Cubs draft: http://www.drafttotheshow.com/draft-review-cubs/

 

So the Cubs entire draft grade hinges on whether Schwarber can catch? Seems a little silly.

[jersey cubs fan]

Chris Crawford reviews the Cubs draft: http://www.drafttotheshow.com/draft-review-cubs/

 

So the Cubs entire draft grade hinges on whether Schwarber can catch? Seems a little silly.

 

Most drafts hinge on whether your first round pick becomes a valuable player.

[Hrubes20]

….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.

 

This. If you must equate Schwarber's bat with a 2013 draft pick, go with D.J. Peterson.

[snoodmonger]

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."

 

 

You're just looking for ways to be disappointed. What a shitty, miserable way to live.

[CubColtPacer]

Chris Crawford reviews the Cubs draft: http://www.drafttotheshow.com/draft-review-cubs/

 

So he raves about The Cubs picks after the first 3 rounds, hates the Schwarber pick, but doesn't acknowledge that the two are related?

My thoughts exactly.

 

I don't think it's the fact that they went under slot that bothered him. It's that he didn't even have Schwarber rated as a good underslot player at 4. He had him as the 26th best player which would have been a slot value of 1.87 million, and Scwarber ended up signing for a slot value between the 8th and 9th selection.

[jersey cubs fan]

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."

 

 

You're just looking for ways to be disappointed. What a [expletive], miserable way to live.

 

You say this like the Cubs draft was some runaway train of awesomeness and kyle is nitpicking the little things. They had the fourth pick and didn't come away with a really exciting player. It's fair to not be particularly impressed by it.

[Guest]

Which was the really exciting player available at #4 you would have picked?