Minor League Musings

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Is that really par for the course?

 

For a point of comparison, 2012 was the first draft with bonus pools. Here's the breakdown of players who reached 2+ career bWAR:

 

1st round: 14 players (1 Cub, Almora)

Supplemental round (also 30 picks): 10 players (no Cubs, Johnson and Blackburn picked)

All other rounds combined: 23 players (1 Cub, Bote)

 

Total: 47 players, 2 Cubs

 

Based on the success rate of the whole group and a bump for the Cubs drafting high in the first round, you'd expect the Cubs to have had about 2 such players, and that's what they got.

[Regular Show]

Is that really par for the course?

 

For a point of comparison, 2012 was the first draft with bonus pools. Here's the breakdown of players who reached 2+ career bWAR:

 

1st round: 14 players (1 Cub, Almora)

Supplemental round (also 30 picks): 10 players (no Cubs, Johnson and Blackburn picked)

All other rounds combined: 23 players (1 Cub, Bote)

 

Total: 47 players, 2 Cubs

 

Based on the success rate of the whole group and a bump for the Cubs drafting high in the first round, you'd expect the Cubs to have had about 2 such players, and that's what they got.

 

Your point is valid, but they got super lucky on Bote. Great late round pick, but you don't expect that kind of success from a late round pick.

 

Maybe once every decade a team gets lucky on a late round pick (who signs for a modest bonus. Not an overslot kid who fell in the draft) like this. Bote almost quit the game so kudos to him for working hard/modifying the swing and taking advantage of his chance.

 

The Cubs deserve some credit here, but again this is kind of just random luck more than good process/scouting IMO. It still counts, but the amount of credit you give the scouting department in these situations is murky...

 

How much credit do the Cardinals deserve for drafting Pujols so late in '99? Not much in my book. They just got lucky/bad process leading to good results. I mean bad process for all 30 teams in MLB.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Is that really par for the course?

 

For a point of comparison, 2012 was the first draft with bonus pools. Here's the breakdown of players who reached 2+ career bWAR:

 

1st round: 14 players (1 Cub, Almora)

Supplemental round (also 30 picks): 10 players (no Cubs, Johnson and Blackburn picked)

All other rounds combined: 23 players (1 Cub, Bote)

 

Total: 47 players, 2 Cubs

 

Based on the success rate of the whole group and a bump for the Cubs drafting high in the first round, you'd expect the Cubs to have had about 2 such players, and that's what they got.

 

Your point is valid, but they got super lucky on Bote. Great late round pick, but you don't expect that kind of success from a late round pick.

 

This is exactly the point, it's more or less a dice roll. Bote was far from being alone in that regard, that draft also had college draftees in rounds 15+ like Leone, Strahm, Oberg, Suter, and Matt Duffy meet the 2 WAR criteria. That doesn't mean those teams are especially shrewd, but it emphasizes how much failure and randomness there is once you get beyond the top 25-50 picks.

[We Got The Whole 9]

Is that really par for the course?

 

For a point of comparison, 2012 was the first draft with bonus pools. Here's the breakdown of players who reached 2+ career bWAR:

 

1st round: 14 players (1 Cub, Almora)

Supplemental round (also 30 picks): 10 players (no Cubs, Johnson and Blackburn picked)

All other rounds combined: 23 players (1 Cub, Bote)

 

Total: 47 players, 2 Cubs

 

Based on the success rate of the whole group and a bump for the Cubs drafting high in the first round, you'd expect the Cubs to have had about 2 such players, and that's what they got.

Point taken. I've never seen it broken down like that. I guess my expectations are out of whack.

[Regular Show]

 

For a point of comparison, 2012 was the first draft with bonus pools. Here's the breakdown of players who reached 2+ career bWAR:

 

1st round: 14 players (1 Cub, Almora)

Supplemental round (also 30 picks): 10 players (no Cubs, Johnson and Blackburn picked)

All other rounds combined: 23 players (1 Cub, Bote)

 

Total: 47 players, 2 Cubs

 

Based on the success rate of the whole group and a bump for the Cubs drafting high in the first round, you'd expect the Cubs to have had about 2 such players, and that's what they got.

 

Your point is valid, but they got super lucky on Bote. Great late round pick, but you don't expect that kind of success from a late round pick.

 

This is exactly the point, it's more or less a dice roll. Bote was far from being alone in that regard, that draft also had college draftees in rounds 15+ like Leone, Strahm, Oberg, Suter, and Matt Duffy meet the 2 WAR criteria. That doesn't mean those teams are especially shrewd, but it emphasizes how much failure and randomness there is once you get beyond the top 25-50 picks.

 

So I'm talking more about rounds 2-10 including the supplemental 1st round (where you have more control and higher expectations) when I'm talking about the bad results and disappointment with McLeod and the scouting department.

 

Yeah, rounds 11+ and beyond are pretty much a crapshoot, but you should be able to find good players/pitchers after the 1st round with a sound process/good scouting. Other teams find plenty of good players in those rounds. I can definitely tell you scouts inside the organization are disappointed with their results in those rounds (2-10) and expect more.

[Bertz]

 

Your point is valid, but they got super lucky on Bote. Great late round pick, but you don't expect that kind of success from a late round pick.

 

This is exactly the point, it's more or less a dice roll. Bote was far from being alone in that regard, that draft also had college draftees in rounds 15+ like Leone, Strahm, Oberg, Suter, and Matt Duffy meet the 2 WAR criteria. That doesn't mean those teams are especially shrewd, but it emphasizes how much failure and randomness there is once you get beyond the top 25-50 picks.

 

So I'm talking more about rounds 2-10 including the supplemental 1st round (where you have more control and higher expectations) when I'm talking about the bad results and disappointment with McLeod and the scouting department.

 

Yeah, rounds 11+ and beyond are pretty much a crapshoot, but you should be able to find good players/pitchers after the 1st round with a sound process/good scouting. Other teams find plenty of good players in those rounds. I can definitely tell you scouts inside the organization are disappointed with their results in those rounds (2-10) and expect more.

 

This is some serious goalpost moving. Regardless, who are these teams really cleaning up in 2-10?

 

McLeod's first three drafts produced Cease and Godley in the 2-10 range, with Steele, Norwood, and Underwood each still having modest reliever potential. I haven't gone through all 30 teams, but I'd guess that's pretty average. A typical draft nets a team a solid regular plus 1-2 role players. Expecting the team to hit on multiple guys in the 2-10 range each year is setting yourself up for massive disappointment.

[Regular Show]

 

This is exactly the point, it's more or less a dice roll. Bote was far from being alone in that regard, that draft also had college draftees in rounds 15+ like Leone, Strahm, Oberg, Suter, and Matt Duffy meet the 2 WAR criteria. That doesn't mean those teams are especially shrewd, but it emphasizes how much failure and randomness there is once you get beyond the top 25-50 picks.

 

So I'm talking more about rounds 2-10 including the supplemental 1st round (where you have more control and higher expectations) when I'm talking about the bad results and disappointment with McLeod and the scouting department.

 

Yeah, rounds 11+ and beyond are pretty much a crapshoot, but you should be able to find good players/pitchers after the 1st round with a sound process/good scouting. Other teams find plenty of good players in those rounds. I can definitely tell you scouts inside the organization are disappointed with their results in those rounds (2-10) and expect more.

 

This is some serious goalpost moving. Regardless, who are these teams really cleaning up in 2-10?

 

McLeod's first three drafts produced Cease and Godley in the 2-10 range, with Steele, Norwood, and Underwood each still having modest reliever potential. I haven't gone through all 30 teams, but I'd guess that's pretty average. A typical draft nets a team a solid regular plus 1-2 role players. Expecting the team to hit on multiple guys in the 2-10 range each year is setting yourself up for massive disappointment.

 

It's not "some serious goalpost moving". That's really dumb. I've always been talking about performance after the 1st round in rounds 2 through 10 (or thereabouts).

 

Study the Cardinals and their draft history or the Astros.

 

Godley was a great pick (and I've said that many times) but it seems like his usefulness or effectiveness in the big leagues is pretty much done. Still a great late round pick. Cease was a great pick also, but really a talented 1st round arm that fell due to injury and needing TJS. Everyone knew about him and just needed to meet his asking price and figure out his commitment to Vanderbilt wasn't a lock. Pretty easy scouting job right there.

 

Teams really care how they do in those rounds (1-10) and anything after that is pretty much a bonus. They break down players into tiers with organization players starting anywhere from rounds 8-20. Those players are just filler types that no one expects to break into the majors. Sometimes they actually turn into real prospects and players.

 

Again, if you want to justify the selections and history of this regime then go ahead, but I can tell you scouts within the organization are disappointed and know they need to do better. Jason McLeod, Theo and Jed have all mentioned numerous times how important developing homegrown arms is as an organization and how disappointed they've been with their results. Maybe the results would be better in rounds 2-10 if they took more hitters instead of focusing on this quantitative pitching selection strategy after the 1st round. Who knows?

 

I think the Cubs are better at identifying hitters than they are at finding/developing pitching prospects. Maybe you should stick to what you're good at and know your strengths. I think the pitching mandate in the 2017 draft was foolish.

 

I should also mention they've had some close calls and I know they really badly wanted Jack Flaherty and Sean Manaea. Certainly, luck and where you select in the round and what teams are ahead of you plays a big part. Maybe the performance and track record gets better going forward with this new approach to drafting pitchers. They're taking pitchers with higher upsides so that's nice and I like the 2019 draft class (for the most part).

[Transmogrified Tiger]

It's not "some serious goalpost moving". That's really dumb. I've always been talking about performance after the 1st round in rounds 2 through 10 (or thereabouts).

 

Study the Cardinals and their draft history or the Astros.

 

 

To continue with the draft pool era comps:

 

Cardinals draftees in Rds 2-10 with 2+ bWAR

 

2016: none

2015: Bader & DeJong

2014: none

2013: none

2012: none

 

And the Astros:

 

2016: none

2015: none

2014: Mengden

2013: none

2012: Brett Phillips

 

Granted, the Cubs are 0 fer in that window(Godley is just short of 2 bWAR), but I'm not sure 2 for 45 is materially different than 0 for 45 when those picks don't have much of a success rate to begin with.

[Regular Show]

It's not "some serious goalpost moving". That's really dumb. I've always been talking about performance after the 1st round in rounds 2 through 10 (or thereabouts).

 

Study the Cardinals and their draft history or the Astros.

 

 

To continue with the draft pool era comps:

 

Cardinals draftees in Rds 2-10 with 2+ bWAR

 

2016: none

2015: Bader & DeJong

2014: none

2013: none

2012: none

 

And the Astros:

 

2016: none

2015: none

2014: Mengden

2013: none

2012: Brett Phillips

 

You're forgetting Stephen Piscotty and Carson Kelly. Jordan Hicks was in the 2015 draft...

 

Lance McCullers in the 2012 draft. Jacob Nottingham is a real prospect and has a chance to accumulate plenty of WAR over time. J.D. Davis too. Daz Cameron was a highly rated prospect who brought value in a trade (part of the Verlander trade) and could develop into a meaningful player with the Tigers.

 

You have to mention prospects and young players who will probably reach 2+ bWAR in time (assuming good health). If you want to be disingenuous then I'm stopping right here and I'm not continuing this...

 

EDIT (I'm including the supplemental first round here):

 

Good draft picks by the Cardinals:

 

2012: Stephen Piscotty, Carson Kelly and Kyle Barraclough. Even Rowan Wick (9th) is kinda useful

2013: Oscar Mercado (still early but doing well with the Indians), Mike Mayers (made it but is terrible so far)

2014: Austin Gomber (is an okay prospect), Daniel Ponce De Leon (ironically drafted by the Cubs previously, failed his physical and never signed with us)

2015: Harrison Bader, Jordan Hicks, Paul DeJong, Jake Woodford (okay prospect), Ryne Helsley (good prospect)

2016: Connor Jones (meh prospect at this point), Zac Gallen (doing well with the Marlins now. This guy I really liked in the 2016 draft and wanted the Cubs to take him with their first pick in the 3rd round), Andrew Knizner (serious prospect. One of the best C prospects in the game)

*Dylan Carlson and Dakota Hudson were taken at the end of the first round as compensation for losing Heyward and Lackey. Essentially supplemental 1st round picks...

 

Good draft picks by the Astros:

 

2012: Lance McCullers, Rio Ruiz (reached the majors but he sucks), Preston Tucker (ditto), Brett Philips (same thing)

2013: Tony Kemp (doing okay with the Astros), Jacob Nottingham

2014: Derek Fisher (has some value, was a decent prospect), AJ Reed (same thing. Just picked up by the White Sox), J.D. Davis, Daniel Mengden, *Jacob Nix (would've signed him, but couldn't... It's complicated because they didn't sign #1 overall pick Brady Aiken that year. Anyway, was a top pitching prospect at one time)

2015: Daz Cameron (was highly rated. Not anymore), Riley Ferrell (Rule 5 pick and returned)

2016: Jake Rogers (okay C prospect)

 

To clarify, by "good draft pick" I mean they reached the majors and are contributing and/or at least had real value as a prospect in the minors at some point. Yes, you can say that about some Cubs' draft picks as well and that's fair. Maybe I should list it as okay/good/great draft picks since we don't quite know how their careers will end up. James Norwood and Duane Underwood still have a chance to develop and contribute at the big league level (probably not as a trade piece).

[Transmogrified Tiger]

I didn't include supplemental firsts because 1) their success rate is quite different than the rest of rounds 2-10; 2) they aren't consistent picks, the Cubs have had 4 supplemental firsts in the draft pool era(2 in 2012, one each in 2017 and 2019), the Cardinals have had TEN, thanks to their competitive balance comp nonsense.

[Bertz]

Not to belabor the point, but when you say that you wish McLeod was better at later round picks, someone mentions Bote, and you go "woah woah woah not THAT late" you're absolutely moving the goalposts.

 

Also, if we're going to discount Cease, which honestly I don't think is completely unfair, you have to do the same with McCullers, Ruiz, and Daz Cameron. They were acquired the exact same way.

 

Finally, even ignoring any nitpicking about who should and should count and blah blah blah, the Cards and Astros are two teams. Unless there are like 20 teams you can do this with, it's really hard to be concerned about McLeod. We know he's very good on day 1, so unless he's noticeably below average after that point, he's going to net out as very good at his job, particularly given the extra weight those top picks carry. Oh, and that also ignores IFA, where we're also a top 5ish team.

[Hrubes20]

[tweet]

[/tweet]

I hate that take so damn much (abolish the draft system). I don't love the current system, but just outright getting rid of the draft would create all kinds of chaos. If you hard capped it like how teams spend on IFAs right now then the top players would get the majority of the money with whatever scraps are left going to the rest of the players. It would still result in the best prospects going to the big market teams. A top prospect like Adley Rutschman would probably never end up with a team like the Orioles. If you didn't hard cap (and let teams spend as much as they want) then madness would ensue.

 

The Cubs would do really well in a system where the draft was abolished, but that doesn't make it fair to the small market teams. It would be terrible for parity in this sport IMO.

 

Yeah, they need to focus their attention on getting minor leaguers a living wage; getting more money for pre-arb players; and putting a stop to service time manipulations. As much as I would love to see the Brewers never get a 1st round talent to sign with them, I agree 100% that it would kill parity.

[jersey cubs fan]

I agree 100% that it would kill parity.

No it wouldn't.

 

The biggest spenders aren't going to be able to horde everybody any more than they already can. A team's operating budget will still be a budget. If a Baltimore only wants to spend $60m on the major league roster they will have all the money in the world to sign any prospect they want. Hard capping it solves nothing.

 

Get more money into the hands of younger players earlier in the process.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

I agree 100% that it would kill parity.

No it wouldn't.

 

The biggest spenders aren't going to be able to horde everybody any more than they already can. A team's operating budget will still be a budget. If a Baltimore only wants to spend $60m on the major league roster they will have all the money in the world to sign any prospect they want. Hard capping it solves nothing.

 

Get more money into the hands of younger players earlier in the process.

 

Yes, set the luxury tax inclusive of draft/IFA spending and get rid of the pools, and that problem solves itself. If someone would rather give the next Kris Bryant(or Mark Appel) a 15 million bonus instead of the current Tyler Chatwood a 15 million AAV in free agency, that's fine with me. It also opens up more opportunities for teams to be smarter about their scouting and be more creative with where they try to find value at the amateur level. Maybe a team wants to experiment with paying through the nose for 5 guys who are top 20 talents and then doing no other draft spending of note, or maybe someone wants to give 1 million to 20 different guys. You can't do that in the pool system.

[Regular Show]

I agree 100% that it would kill parity.

No it wouldn't.

 

The biggest spenders aren't going to be able to horde everybody any more than they already can. A team's operating budget will still be a budget. If a Baltimore only wants to spend $60m on the major league roster they will have all the money in the world to sign any prospect they want. Hard capping it solves nothing.

 

Get more money into the hands of younger players earlier in the process.

 

Yes, set the luxury tax inclusive of draft/IFA spending and get rid of the pools, and that problem solves itself. If someone would rather give the next Kris Bryant(or Mark Appel) a 15 million bonus instead of the current Tyler Chatwood a 15 million AAV in free agency, that's fine with me. It also opens up more opportunities for teams to be smarter about their scouting and be more creative with where they try to find value at the amateur level. Maybe a team wants to experiment with paying through the nose for 5 guys who are top 20 talents and then doing no other draft spending of note, or maybe someone wants to give 1 million to 20 different guys. You can't do that in the pool system.

 

We know how talent is distributed through the draft with the best talent (that produces by far the most WAR) at the very top. The top WAR-generating players/talent distribution goes down rapidly before it slows down like a negative logarithmic curve. The big market teams will make sure to always leave room to sign the top talent (and in some great years with lots of talent). The Cubs and other big market teams will spend whatever it takes to sign KB because the ROI is so great. They might start spending less on FAs and will be forced to choose who they want to sign, but the young talent in the draft and IFA market will yield better returns overall.

 

I guarantee big market teams will dominate under this scenario where you get rid of the pools. Adley Rutschman would probably get $50 mil, maybe $60 mil as a signing bonus and should easily be worth it. A small market team can only go so high on talent like this before the price becomes prohibitive. Not to mention the Player's Union being angry over how much money these younger unproven players are getting. Mark Appel failing as a high draft pick is one thing, but Mark Appel failing and getting $20-$25 mil is another.

 

Teams are really smart and the FOs will figure out how to allocate their money best. Your idea would give money to the younger players far sooner and upend how teams spend money, but big market teams (BOS, CHC, NYY and LAD especially) will sign the Bryants, Correas, Rutschmans, Coles, etc. at the very top and I believe this would make parity worse overall.

[Hrubes20]

I agree 100% that it would kill parity.

No it wouldn't.

 

The biggest spenders aren't going to be able to horde everybody any more than they already can. A team's operating budget will still be a budget. If a Baltimore only wants to spend $60m on the major league roster they will have all the money in the world to sign any prospect they want. Hard capping it solves nothing.

 

Get more money into the hands of younger players earlier in the process.

 

Yes, set the luxury tax inclusive of draft/IFA spending and get rid of the pools, and that problem solves itself. If someone would rather give the next Kris Bryant(or Mark Appel) a 15 million bonus instead of the current Tyler Chatwood a 15 million AAV in free agency, that's fine with me. It also opens up more opportunities for teams to be smarter about their scouting and be more creative with where they try to find value at the amateur level. Maybe a team wants to experiment with paying through the nose for 5 guys who are top 20 talents and then doing no other draft spending of note, or maybe someone wants to give 1 million to 20 different guys. You can't do that in the pool system.

 

A few problems I see there:

 

1. Maybe the biggest, is that there is absolutely no way the Union agrees to lumping amateur spending into the LT calculations unless the limit is raised by tens of millions, while also having a salary floor implemented for the big league team. The Union will fight for amateur bonuses right up until the point that it could theoretically take even $1 away from the guys already in the bigs.

 

2. What penalties are you putting out there to prohibit the big markets from simply blowing past the LT? Without a draft anymore, easily the biggest deterrent to blowing past the LT is now gone. Teams have already been taxed heavily for going over previous IFA limits, and it wasn't a deterrent. Hell, they even showed that having to sit out entire years of signing amateurs wasn't a big enough deterrent if they wanted to go balls out one year.

 

3. Like Regular Show said, the elite talents would garner tens of millions straight out of college if it were true FA. Only the big markets can afford to take these types of chances on the young, elite guys. It creates a world where the rich can get richer. I mean, it would theoretically make it quite easy for a team like the Yankees to win the WS and then still get the #1 overall pick in the draft the next summer.

 

This isn't parity related, but I'd be remiss if I didn't also point out that the lack of a draft would create a lot of the same backchannel shadiness that plagues Latin America and the IFA process. You would have scouts meeting with 15 year olds in HS; coming to agreements with them; paying them under the table in HS or college (more than the college already is); etc.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

For the record, I'm ambivalent on abolishing the draft. I think abolishing it has some appealing positives, but I also recognize that the odds that route ends up favoring big market teams is pretty high. I'm just not sure how much it favors them.

 

For the rest of those concerns, to me that gets lumped in to the devil is in the details. Yes, they'd absolutely need to raise the luxury tax if they went that way and have some type of floor as well as some potentially bigger penalties. I think IFA has shown that the right penalties can influence behavior and the wrong ones will be entirely ignored, so what that is is important. I'll borrow from my list of ideas here to give a slightly more complete thought:

 

- I'd have the luxury tax set to reflect that players are receiving a set percentage of revenue each year, even when you consider the public facing numbers that share has declined, so that's an easy enough starting point.

 

- Then I'd say that all player spending falls in that bucket. No draft or IFA restrictions, so if you want to spend 75% of your money on amateurs, you can do that. This removes the incentive to tank while still giving teams an option to optimize talent for future seasons when they're clearly not good enough today.

 

- Any teams not spending at least a certain percentage of the tax threshold aren't eligible for revenue sharing.

 

In hindsight, you can probably add 'or eligible for national TV money' to that threat of penalties for missing the floor, or you can just say that they're penalized 10 or 100x the shortage, whatever influences the behavior is the important thing.

[Regular Show]

[tweet]

[/tweet]

2:08 – Eric leads us into a discussion of the prospects on next week’s Trade Value Rankings

12:35 – They begin the Futures Game notes with the AL Hitters (first catchers, then infielders, then outfielders)

43:40 – They then move on to the NL Hitters (first catchers, then infielders, then outfielders)

1:03:29 – Then they move to pitching, starting with the AL Pitchers, going in order of appearance in the game

1:14:17 – Then they finish with the NL Pitchers, going in order of appearance as well

[CubsWin]

[tweet]

[/tweet]

2:08 – Eric leads us into a discussion of the prospects on next week’s Trade Value Rankings

12:35 – They begin the Futures Game notes with the AL Hitters (first catchers, then infielders, then outfielders)

43:40 – They then move on to the NL Hitters (first catchers, then infielders, then outfielders)

1:03:29 – Then they move to pitching, starting with the AL Pitchers, going in order of appearance in the game

1:14:17 – Then they finish with the NL Pitchers, going in order of appearance as well

Thanks Reg.

[Regular Show]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/keithlaw/status/1149307844862386176[/tweet]

Mentioned this to Raisin already but no Cubs prospects made the list; Nico didn't make the cut.

[Regular Show]

From the latest Klaw chat:

 

Matt M: Would Nico Hoerner crack your top 100?

Keith Law: Probably. A lot of people asking why he’s not on the top 50 and … again, why would he be? He has barely played this year due to injury and it’s not like he’s a huge tools guy: His value is in the expectation that he’s going to hit.

Yeah, he's not a "huge tools guy" but the hit tool for Hoerner is really good and his defense isn't bad (and the power tool is grading up now). I guess Keith Law still isn't that high on Hoerner.

 

addoeh: Have you ever heard of a player have a similar journey to the majors as Robel Garcia’s?

Keith Law: No, and I mean that literally: I don’t know of another player who went from Italy’s semipro league to the majors. It is movie material if he’s any good, maybe even if he’s not. Those are my people but the quality of baseball in Italy is not good.

[Tryptamine]

I don't see a great the case for Hoerner as a top 50 prospect either, but it would be convenient to see him on one or two. If he did, I suspect alot of it would be on the Cubs' history of first round college bats. Law hits the nail on the head harping on the tools and missed games/reps in the wider world of MLB and over the long haul.

 

I wonder if he's basically Castro with better timing and in an org more willing to move around guys with defensive question marks - BABIP fueled offense, some power, can make a fun play at SS and is mostly competent but no one will say *good*, faster in a straight line but not particularly quick or athletic, not projectable or big, questions about patience. There's alot of use a team like this can get out of a guy like Hoerner, but it's also not hard to see there being 50 better and/or more interesting prospects out there

 

Yeah, like Nolan Gorman who I believe found himself at #20.

[Regular Show]

For Tom:

 

 

 

I need to place a freaking disclaimer at the bottom of all my posts that I don't wish to engage in conversation with you. I thought I made that abundantly clear, but I guess not. I knew you would eventually respond to something I posted here...

 

Don't respond to what I post or I'm just going to PM this content to Raisin and a few others here. I mean I already PM Raisin a decent amount because I don't want to deal with you (and others here).

[Regular Show]

For Tom:

 

 

 

I need to place a freaking disclaimer at the bottom of all my posts that I don't wish to engage in conversation with you. I thought I made that abundantly clear, but I guess not. I knew you would eventually respond to something I posted here...

 

Don't respond to what I post or I'm just going to PM this content to Raisin and a few others here. I mean I already PM Raisin a decent amount because I don't want to deal with you (and others here).

 

Guy, no one is engaging in conversation with you. I am commenting on Keith Law's top 50 and his comments, could not possibly care less what *you* had to say on them

 

You wrote your post right after I posted something and you literally do this all the time here. I post a mock draft and you feel the need to post a mock draft, I talk about a draft prospect and you feel the need to talk about them as well, I mention something about a team's prospects and farm system and you feel the need to chime in. It's pretty clear and you have a history of doing this...

 

That’s funny, I did a mock last night for shiggles and left it saved as a draft. Instead I made that post about what I’d do if it were draft day...I have Wilson gone by the time the Cubs pick, guy’s a 3 year hitter that actually hit and should stick at SS

 

You wrote that literally after I made one and I really did not want to compare mock drafts with you in the 2019 Draft Thread.

[Bertz]

I don't see a great the case for Hoerner as a top 50 prospect either, but it would be convenient to see him on one or two. If he did, I suspect alot of it would be on the Cubs' history of first round college bats. Law hits the nail on the head harping on the tools and missed games/reps in the wider world of MLB and over the long haul.

 

I wonder if he's basically Castro with better timing and in an org more willing to move around guys with defensive question marks - BABIP fueled offense, some power, can make a fun play at SS and is mostly competent but no one will say *good*, faster in a straight line but not particularly quick or athletic, not projectable or big, questions about patience. There's alot of use a team like this can get out of a guy like Hoerner, but it's also not hard to see there being 50 better and/or more interesting prospects out there

 

Castro is a really good comp. I'd expect a few more walks but that's not enough for me to quibble.

 

Also, Law's generally a tools first guy. He's balanced out a bit more the past few years, but that's still what he leans on. Like he's already expressed that he's pretty bullish on Davis, and he was always the high man on Gallo (smart) and Lew Brinson (whoops!)