2018 Draft Thread

[Hrubes20]

It's behind the paywall for me as well. Actually, EVERYTHING is now behind a paywall over at BA. Their top 500 (or 200 or whatever it first was) has been free content for as long as I've been actively following the draft. I can't access it anymore without a subscription.

[davell]

It's behind the paywall for me as well. Actually, EVERYTHING is now behind a paywall over at BA. Their top 500 (or 200 or whatever it first was) has been free content for as long as I've been actively following the draft. I can't access it anymore without a subscription.

 

It WAS available at first. Now it's not. I can currently access some articles they're posting(saw the Glaser article today) and others I can't. Last week they were asking me to sign in on EVERYTHING. So, I was nothing. It seems like it there's a limitation on articles you can read per month or something, it's pretty random. I have no idea what to think when I click on something there, at this stage.

[davell]

Question about Kumar Rocker. Seems like a month ago he was projected to go in the top ten. In your latest mock, you have him going in the supplemental rounds. Did something happen with him that I missed to drop his stock?

Kiley McDaniel

1:10 I mean we literally spelled it out in the mock. He had a bad last start, he wants a lot of money, so once he slides past 15 or so, it's either overpay in the 30's (for top 15 money) or go to school.

 

And there's finality on what Rocker's situation is.

[davell]

Question about Kumar Rocker. Seems like a month ago he was projected to go in the top ten. In your latest mock, you have him going in the supplemental rounds. Did something happen with him that I missed to drop his stock?

Kiley McDaniel

1:10 I mean we literally spelled it out in the mock. He had a bad last start, he wants a lot of money, so once he slides past 15 or so, it's either overpay in the 30's (for top 15 money) or go to school.

 

And there's finality on what Rocker's situation is.

 

Even if you don’t buy into Rocker, considering how long he’s been on radars this is extremely reactionary. I doubt good FOs think like this and the start didn’t change much of anything. He’s been rumored all over the place all spring (including that mock) because in general there’s a huge emphasis on signability though specifically every year there’s orgs that zag.

 

I still think he takes $3-4 million fromthe right/lucky org in the back half of the first.

 

If it's 15th pick money, it's around 3.7 mill. So, somewhere in the 3.5-4 mill area seems to be his price tag. Teams inside the top 10 may not think he's the BPA in that range. They may be trying to find an underslot, that saves them more too possibly.

 

Teams in the 11-15 range could see things the same way, I guess. Personally, that's where he probably SHOULD go, in my mind. But, there's depth here, and teams could easily be swayed against him at that spot. One start shouldn't have an effect. Wouldn't for me. But, if you've got a few guys you feel basically the same about, then I see that as a usable separator, even if it wouldn't be mine.

 

However, you drop past 15 and he becomes a guy you're having to overslot. Most teams(us included) haven't taken guys in the 1st, that you over slot on. Not sure why, but maybe teams prefer keeping "above water" on their monetary outlay for the first few rounds. Don't want to go under slot for a few rounds afterwards.

 

Anyway, I don't see us taking a guy that's a mill over the slot value, in the first. I have a scenario of how we COULD and it appeals to me actually. But, I just don't see the TO breaking from the norm for them. Which means slot, plus college guys mainly in the 1st 2 Rounds anyway.

 

I think KC, with 2 comp picks at 33 and 34, and the drafts overall highest budget, is where Rucker and one more high dollar HS arm, maybe Hankins, both wind up.

[davell]

In order, for our 1st pick, I'd prefer.....

 

1. College Bat

2. High School Bat

3. College Pitcher

4. High School Pitcher

 

After that, I'd prefer the opposite, in the 2nd and comp picks.

 

In fact, it'd be great, if we had one of each, after our 1st, 2nd, and 2 comp picks.

[Regular Show]

In order, for our 1st pick, I'd prefer.....

 

1. College Bat

2. High School Bat

3. College Pitcher

4. High School Pitcher

 

After that, I'd prefer the opposite, in the 2nd and comp picks.

 

In fact, it'd be great, if we had one of each, after our 1st, 2nd, and 2 comp picks.

 

So at our pick (#24) I just don't think there will be a college bat that's better than the other prospects available at that point. India is too high now, and I don't like Eierman or Hoerner that much. Larnach will probably be selected before their pick too.

 

I think the clear strength of this draft is pitching so you have to take advantage of that. I want them to target a good high school bat as well, but get away from taking the great athlete/raw baseball skills type player.

[davell]

In order, for our 1st pick, I'd prefer.....

 

1. College Bat

2. High School Bat

3. College Pitcher

4. High School Pitcher

 

After that, I'd prefer the opposite, in the 2nd and comp picks.

 

In fact, it'd be great, if we had one of each, after our 1st, 2nd, and 2 comp picks.

 

So at our pick (#24) I just don't think there will be a college bat that's better than the other prospects available at that point. India is too high now, and I don't like Eierman or Hoerner that much. Larnach will probably be selected before their pick too.

 

I think the clear strength of this draft is pitching so you have to take advantage of that. I want them to target a good high school bat as well, but get away from taking the great athlete/raw baseball skills type player.

 

Well yeah, I'm not taking a guy just to mark off my list. That IS my preference, no matter where we pick in ANY draft. In this one, I hate saying pitching looks to be where the strength is, where we're at, but it likely is.....

 

But, if any of Scott, Turang, or Larnach are available at 24, I'm taking them. And I'm not opposed to taking Walker, Hannah, or Groshans either. Although I'd want a discount on Walker or Hanna, to throw at a pitcher next round.

[Regular Show]

In order, for our 1st pick, I'd prefer.....

 

1. College Bat

2. High School Bat

3. College Pitcher

4. High School Pitcher

 

After that, I'd prefer the opposite, in the 2nd and comp picks.

 

In fact, it'd be great, if we had one of each, after our 1st, 2nd, and 2 comp picks.

 

So at our pick (#24) I just don't think there will be a college bat that's better than the other prospects available at that point. India is too high now, and I don't like Eierman or Hoerner that much. Larnach will probably be selected before their pick too.

 

I think the clear strength of this draft is pitching so you have to take advantage of that. I want them to target a good high school bat as well, but get away from taking the great athlete/raw baseball skills type player.

 

Well yeah, I'm not taking a guy just to mark off my list. That IS my preference, no matter where we pick in ANY draft. In this one, I hate saying pitching looks to be where the strength is, where we're at, but it likely is.....

 

But, if any of Scott, Turang, or Larnach are available at 24, I'm taking them. And I'm not opposed to taking Walker, Hannah, or Groshans either. Although I'd want a discount on Walker or Hanna, to throw at a pitcher next round.

 

If we're going after a hitter I want Jordan Groshans. I really like him and I've watched a lot of video of him now. I've read some comps comparing him to Carter Kieboom. He's a prospect with no standout tool but no glaring weakness with the potential to get stronger and hit 20+ HRs down the road. That's who I want, but I know there are pitching prospects with higher ceilings who will probably be available.

 

Larnach is my favorite college hitter that might be available when the Cubs pick in the 1st round.

[Regular Show]

[tweet]

[/tweet]

 

This article is similar to the one posted in BaseballAmerica.

 

'We absolutely did try to force the pitching, in terms of going heavy with taking a lot of arms,' McLeod said. 'I don’t think that it’ll be as much of an internal mandate for us to really go out and just keep getting volume, volume. Of course, we’re going to try to hit on pitching again. But ideally, we’d feel good about taking a couple of position players. We’re going to try to hone in on a couple of guys that we’ve been spending time with this spring.'

 

I don't do Hot Takes, but here is one I guess: Why the Cubs are targeting Hitting Prospects in this year's draft?

 

Well, it's because the Cubs organization sucks at drafting and developing pitchers right now. Their philosophy of acquiring arms through FA and in trades is working fine so far. We can argue about the results and needing more time to evaluate these drafts under McLeod, but I think frankly they've failed at drafting pitching prospects. Sure, some of them have reached the big leagues like Paul Blackburn and Pierce Johnson, but we haven't developed an impact pitcher from the draft. This is a failure on the part of the scouting department/player development side IMO.

[CaliforniaRaisin]

In order, for our 1st pick, I'd prefer.....

 

1. College Bat

2. High School Bat

3. College Pitcher

4. High School Pitcher

 

After that, I'd prefer the opposite, in the 2nd and comp picks.

 

In fact, it'd be great, if we had one of each, after our 1st, 2nd, and 2 comp picks.

 

So at our pick (#24) I just don't think there will be a college bat that's better than the other prospects available at that point. India is too high now, and I don't like Eierman or Hoerner that much. Larnach will probably be selected before their pick too.

 

I think the clear strength of this draft is pitching so you have to take advantage of that. I want them to target a good high school bat as well, but get away from taking the great athlete/raw baseball skills type player.

 

Well yeah, I'm not taking a guy just to mark off my list. That IS my preference, no matter where we pick in ANY draft. In this one, I hate saying pitching looks to be where the strength is, where we're at, but it likely is.....

 

But, if any of Scott, Turang, or Larnach are available at 24, I'm taking them. And I'm not opposed to taking Walker, Hannah, or Groshans either. Although I'd want a discount on Walker or Hanna, to throw at a pitcher next round.

I’d take Casas at 24 too, if he’s available.

[Bertz]

Law has us taking Naylor in his latest mock. He's my favorite prospect in our range so that sounds pretty good to me.

[CaliforniaRaisin]

Law has us taking Naylor in his latest mock. He's my favorite prospect in our range so that sounds pretty good to me.

 

Oh, that’s another interesting prep hitting prospect, as long as there are no character concerns (after his brother stabbed a guy as a prank).

[davell]

I didn't list Naylor because I thought he had moved into the mid 1st. I'd like that a lot. I'm not sure about Casas. I can't see him as anything other than a 1B and I don't know if I'd want to take one that early or not.

[davell]

Two hot takes:

 

- I think the Cubs’ pitching development issues are mostly that they have not prioritized pitching like they have hitting. They only just used a first on one for the first time last year and have yet to pay big for an IFA arm (Tdeng is their high IIRC).

 

- All this talk about next generation of hitters this year but secretly it’s been going on since they spent close to $6+ million on a handful IFA bats in 2015.

 

Gotta remember the Cuban gem we unearthed named Concepcion. Gerardo, maybe? Anyway, he got like 6 mill from us, but at least it was over 5 years. Albertos was around 1.5 too. As a general rule, pitchers just don't cost as much in IFA. Especially now that Cubans are capped too.

 

It seems like there's only 6-8 pitchers on the top 30 lists in IFA's each year. I know we got Tseng, Moreno, and Mejia the first time and it was a great showing for pitching. In 2015, Albertos wasn't known, so he didn't get ranked, but Marquez was. And it sounds like we've got Gallardo and Machado this year.

 

May not have developed them, but we've taken our shots for sure on some high end pitching, via IFA.

[Hrubes20]

Two hot takes:

 

- I think the Cubs’ pitching development issues are mostly that they have not prioritized pitching like they have hitting. They only just used a first on one for the first time last year and have yet to pay big for an IFA arm (Tdeng is their high IIRC).

 

- All this talk about next generation of hitters this year but secretly it’s been going on since they spent close to $6+ million on a handful IFA bats in 2015.

 

Gotta remember the Cuban gem we unearthed named Concepcion. Gerardo, maybe? Anyway, he got like 6 mill from us, but at least it was over 5 years. Albertos was around 1.5 too. As a general rule, pitchers just don't cost as much in IFA. Especially now that Cubans are capped too.

 

It seems like there's only 6-8 pitchers on the top 30 lists in IFA's each year. I know we got Tseng, Moreno, and Mejia the first time and it was a great showing for pitching. In 2015, Albertos wasn't known, so he didn't get ranked, but Marquez was. And it sounds like we've got Gallardo and Machado this year.

 

May not have developed them, but we've taken our shots for sure on some high end pitching, via IFA.

 

+1 on all of this. I'd also note that Blackburn and Johnson were technically 1st round picks, even if in the supplemental round.

[Hrubes20]

Law has us taking Naylor in his latest mock. He's my favorite prospect in our range so that sounds pretty good to me.

 

I'm on board with that pick for sure.

 

I missed the Steele Walker talk before, and I'm really conflicted on him. If he can increase the power to where more of his doubles go over the fence? That's a Michael Conforto-lite package. If it doesn't, you're probably looking at a ceiling of Melky Cabrera without that one crazy BABIP-fueled season and more strikeouts. I wouldn't hate the pick though.

[Cubswin11]

Two hot takes:

 

- I think the Cubs’ pitching development issues are mostly that they have not prioritized pitching like they have hitting. They only just used a first on one for the first time last year and have yet to pay big for an IFA arm (Tdeng is their high IIRC).

 

- All this talk about next generation of hitters this year but secretly it’s been going on since they spent close to $6+ million on a handful IFA bats in 2015.

 

Gotta remember the Cuban gem we unearthed named Concepcion.

I still am not convinced Concepcion was ever a real person but merely a front/pay off to get Jorge to pick us

[davell]

Gotta remember the Cuban gem we unearthed named Concepcion. Gerardo, maybe? Anyway, he got like 6 mill from us, but at least it was over 5 years. Albertos was around 1.5 too. As a general rule, pitchers just don't cost as much in IFA. Especially now that Cubans are capped too.

 

It seems like there's only 6-8 pitchers on the top 30 lists in IFA's each year. I know we got Tseng, Moreno, and Mejia the first time and it was a great showing for pitching. In 2015, Albertos wasn't known, so he didn't get ranked, but Marquez was. And it sounds like we've got Gallardo and Machado this year.

 

May not have developed them, but we've taken our shots for sure on some high end pitching, via IFA.

 

Occaisonally spending a million on unranked or mid-ranked guys is definitely not the level of commitment required to get some impact talent. Gallardo's easily the highest ranked IFA pitcher they've been tied to in 6 years.

 

Uh, I responded to what you SAID. YOU SAID they hadn't spent big on pitching. Concepcion was 6 mill. Albertos got 1.5 which was definitely a top 3-5 bonus that year for pitching. Tseng got 1.5 or so, which was a top bonus for his year too.

 

I'm not arguing talent. But they HAVE spent, when you said they havent.

 

And actually, you're not grasping the idea that there just isn't much high dollar talent in an IFA class to begin with. The Cubs have spent very highly, compared to other teams, in terms of pitching. Especially if you take Alvarez and Morejon out of the equation, one of which wasn't signable by us, for when he got cleared, and the other because he literally cost 30 mill after penalties and wasn't worth it.

 

The object is to load up in numbers. Putting all your eggs in one 16 year old basket is stupid. No teams do that. Hence, why pitching costs less at that age.

[davell]

Uh, I responded to what you SAID. YOU SAID they hadn't spent big on pitching. Concepcion was 6 mill. Albertos got 1.5 which was definitely a top 3-5 bonus that year for pitching. Tseng got 1.5 or so, which was a top bonus for his year too.

 

That's three guys over a four year span, one ranked, during which they spent maybe five times that dollar total on IFA prospect bats. Since we can include Concepcion's full contract then those guys are a third of the way to Soler alone. Concepcion's deal basically came out to a million and change per year, right in line with those other handful million dollar pitchers, and not a path to getting impact talent anytime soon when combined with those guys being mostly unranked amateurs. It's not alot of money relative to what the Cubs spent on offense or in the grand scheme of things, and likely largely explains why the farm didn't give the ML club both a cheap super lineup and pitching staff.

 

Again, you're basically asking them to spend money that they almost have no reason to spend. They've devoted enough to pitching each class they've been able to spend on.

 

2012- If was Paniagua. He was older, but considered a great signing, at the time. Supposedly very advanced. I think that's when they signed Concepcion too.

2013- Tseng, Moreno, and Mejia were 3 of the top 10 pitching bonuses given out. Tseng was considered a top 5 guy overall that class until he regressed his senior season, which was after the Cubs had already verbally committed to him. Moreno was a top 5 Pitcher in his class. Mejia was a late bloomer that signed a year late and had gained lots of buzz.

 

2015- Extremely weak class. Marquez was the top lefty, Cubs got him. Albertos wasn't ranked, yet was given as high or higher a bonus than anyone in the class. He wasn't ranked because no one had been scouting in Mexico, from the publications. Badler said he would have had him as the top pitching prospect from the class, if he had seen him.

 

Again, they've spent. There's only a finite amount of top 30 pitchers each year. Usually under 10. The Cubs typically get at least 1, usually more than that, of them.

 

They've obviously not had success yet. But, they've put absolutely enough resources into it.

 

And yes, I'm hoping they get Rodriguez more than hoping for Mesa.

 

 

EDIT- After seeing the 3 in 4 years comment..... I guess I need to remind you that in 2014, 2016, and 2017, the Cubs were in the penalty box and were capped at 300K those years. During which, in 2017..... They STILL got a top 5 or 6 pitching prospect from the class, in Serrano. With a 1.2 mill bonus due to the Mexico loophole.

[Regular Show]

In regards to Keith Law's mock draft 2.0 I don't like Noah Naylor. I don't think he sticks at C. I don't know where he plays honestly. Maybe at 3B? He's a very divisive player like Law said.

 

I haven't heard anything bad makeup-wise and you shouldn't judge him based on the behavior of his brother. He's an okay hitter, but I'd rather target someone else at #24.

 

I'm going back and looking at it, and Law doesn't have any team selecting Larnach in the 1st round. I'd rather select Larnach over Naylor.

[Regular Show]

[tweet]

[/tweet]

[Transmogrified Tiger]

In regards to Keith Law's mock draft 2.0 I don't like Noah Naylor. I don't think he sticks at C. I don't know where he plays honestly. Maybe at 3B? He's a very divisive player like Law said.

 

This is less directed at you individually since lots of people do this, but what's the basis for saying that Naylor is or isn't going to stick at catcher? A few sentences from other articles? A youtube clip or two? I don't want to be a gatekeeper but I also don't think there's much to any of our prognostications about the development of high school draftees other than pure guesswork.

[Regular Show]

In regards to Keith Law's mock draft 2.0 I don't like Noah Naylor. I don't think he sticks at C. I don't know where he plays honestly. Maybe at 3B? He's a very divisive player like Law said.

 

This is less directed at you individually since lots of people do this, but what's the basis for saying that Naylor is or isn't going to stick at catcher? A few sentences from other articles? A youtube clip or two? I don't want to be a gatekeeper but I also don't think there's much to any of our prognostications about the development of high school draftees other than pure guesswork.

 

I have one former scout friend. I ask him questions and he talks to other scouts. Have not asked about Noah Naylor specifically.

 

So for Noah Naylor it's both reading scouting reports and watching video on youtube. He isn't terrible as a C, but there was something I didn't like when I was watching him... Probably receiving or pitch framing (which you can improve at). His arm is very good and probably rates as above-average.

 

I remember he made a good play in the 2017 Perfect Game Classic at Petco Park with J.T. Ginn (who I like) pitching. He nails the basestealer at 3B for the last out of the inning. J.T. Ginn didn't have great control or command that day so it probably was hard catching/receiving and making it look good.

 

[bbvideo=853,480]

[/bbvideo]

 

I just don't like HS catchers unless they're really special and scouts say they can definitely stick at catcher. There have been so many disappointments among HS catching prospects that I have a bias against them. Watching video again and he actually looks pretty good defensively. I was wrong and should revise my statement. He probably has a good chance at sticking at C, but that doesn't guarantee he'll stay there.

 

[bbvideo=853,480]https://www.mlb.com/video/2018-draft-noah-naylor-c/c-1869109683[/bbvideo]

[UK]

[tweet]

[/tweet]

 

 

 

Virginia's pitching staff has been solid in 2018, if unspectacular, and junior lefthander Daniel Lynch represents their likely top draft prospect for the 2018 class. He was just okay against Louisville on Saturday afternoon, battling through seven innings without his best command but still giving Virginia a chance to win the game, allowing four runs (two earned) on nine hits and two walks while striking out four. The Cavaliers did pick up the win in this game, pushing Lynch's record to 3-3.

 

Lynch is a long, lean and very slenderly-built lefthander who has some projection remaining physically but not as much as one would think, as he's pretty narrow through his hips and shoulders and probably won't hold much more in the way of weight/strength. Lynch's delivery is pretty solid, really getting into his back hip well and rotation his hips through his drive, getting online to the plate and landing inline as well, getting over his front side okay but having some trouble working down in the zone. The arm action is lengthy and gets offline through the back, but he has solid arm speed and it's mostly clean throughout.

 

The stuff was solid as Lynch showed a fastball that was consistently 93-94 mph early on, but he barely threw it in the early going. The plan coming in for Virginia was apparently for Lynch to attack Louisville with off-speed stuff. He showed a slider, a cutter and a changeup through his outing, working them all in early on and doing a fair job of sequencing them, though Louisville seemed to sit on the off-speed stuff and had some success in doing so. The slider was probably the best pitch in this outing, working in the 82-85 range, showing as a potentially average pitch with solid tilt and some bite. The cutter was a bit firmer and more horizontal, not a bat-missing pitch but a nice wrinkle as he worked to keep the ball off of the barrel. His changeup was a third pitch, thrown in the same velocity range but essentially just moving the opposite way of the cutter, with some deception and fade but more horizontal.

 

Lynch is a bit of a tough eval, considering how little he uses his fastball, at least in this contest, but given his performance history of dominance in the Cape Cod League and solid enough numbers this season at Virginia, along with control of a four-pitch mix.

[Regular Show]

https://www.mlb.com/news/high-school-pitchers-rise-in-mlb-mock-draft/c-277173920

 

This mock has the Cubs taking LHP Ryan Rolison. Lots of prospect analysts are saying Casey Mize is not a slam-dunk to go #1 anymore which is surprising. I still think he goes #1.

 

I think this mock draft is pretty good overall.