2018 Actual MLB Draft Day(s) Thread

[Outshined_One]

Grant gets it.

 

https://www.sbnation.com/platform/amp/mlb/2018/6/5/17411486/mlb-draft-2018-grades

 

His Cubs entry is apropos:

 

24. Chicago Cubs — Nico Hoerner, SS

 

I mean, seriously, what do you expect from draft grades? I hate to lecture you for another year, but these picks will succeed and fail because of imperceptibly small margins. An adjustment that shaves a tenth of a second off a hitter’s reaction time. A delivery that gets smoother with repetition and superior muscle memory. You can’t possibly expect me to know which of these 18-year-olds has the kind of athleticism that will allow them to overcome the obstacles professional baseball will throw at them. Some of them went to their first rock concert, like, 24 months ago.

 

With that written, I guarantee that Nico Hoerner will collect 1,738 hits in his major league career.

 

Grade - B+

 

I'd be okay with Hoerner doing that.

[Tim]

I love the job Theo + crew have done as much as anyone.

 

However, I feel like they are getting more praise than they deserve for the drafting job they've done with the Cubs. I'm more than willing to give them the benefit of the doubt on the first round college hitter. But what else have they done in the draft with the Cubs that gives anyone confidence that they can identify which toolsy HS OF they should pick? Is it DJ Wilson or someone else I'm missing? Why should I have any more confidence in Richan than the litany of similar pitchers they've taken?

 

This is their seventh draft with the Cubs. We've got a pretty long track record for this front office. I think there is room to question their draft strategy without being outrageous when they go so far away from industry consensus.

 

Obviously, none of us know how this will all pan out. The Cubs have far more resources than we do to evaluate these guys. The industry guys absolutely suffer from some level of groupthink when it comes to the rankings, which leaves room for individual teams to have a much better read on true talent level for certain prospects.

 

All that said, I still find this draft...puzzling so far. The comments leading up to the draft were that they "had to nail" this time because they probably won't have this many high picks again for a while. These picks (past the first round) look pretty risky from the outside. I'll just hope they've been able to see things that others haven't, I guess.

[CubinNY]

 

Ive seen the Bryant, Schwarber and Happ picks all criticized...

 

lol, you need another group of friends.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

I love the job Theo + crew have done as much as anyone.

 

However, I feel like they are getting more praise than they deserve for the drafting job they've done with the Cubs. I'm more than willing to give them the benefit of the doubt on the first round college hitter. But what else have they done in the draft with the Cubs that gives anyone confidence that they can identify which toolsy HS OF they should pick? Is it DJ Wilson or someone else I'm missing? Why should I have any more confidence in Richan than the litany of similar pitchers they've taken?

 

This is their seventh draft with the Cubs. We've got a pretty long track record for this front office. I think there is room to question their draft strategy without being outrageous when they go so far away from industry consensus.

 

Obviously, none of us know how this will all pan out. The Cubs have far more resources than we do to evaluate these guys. The industry guys absolutely suffer from some level of groupthink when it comes to the rankings, which leaves room for individual teams to have a much better read on true talent level for certain prospects.

 

All that said, I still find this draft...puzzling so far. The comments leading up to the draft were that they "had to nail" this time because they probably won't have this many high picks again for a while. These picks (past the first round) look pretty risky from the outside. I'll just hope they've been able to see things that others haven't, I guess.

 

There's a matter of degrees here. None of these are the Tyler Colvin pick, and the Cubs have a bunch of picks outside the hardened consensus and in the squishy 20-100 area where there's like 250 guys who can make a case for being worth it, plus the added dimension of signability/pools. They took two toolsy HS OF who had their stock depressed a bit by non-worrisome injuries and who have ceilings worthy of the ~50-75 range that they were drafted, Miami and UCLA aren't exactly recruiting idiots either. If you want to criticize the Richan pick I can at least understand that, given the lack of top line results or premium stuff and the anecdotal likelihood he's not underslot. But the woe is me act because they popped a couple guys who are among the most likely to have large swings on rankings(HS OF who missed a chunk of their senior year) on top of a college bat in the 1st round doesn't resonate. Criticize the drafting outcomes all you want, but the reflexive anger that they didn't draft as if they just averaged out MLB/BA/PG's draft rankings and went down the list is silly.

[Bertz]

Wilcox is going to school. Probably for the best. now I don't have to force a "Poet Laureate of the West" joke.

 

[tweet]

[/tweet]

[r_mack]

LOL at anyone doubting Theo/Jed/Jason at this point. Even if he went 0 for this entire draft I would trust him.

 

His drafts with the Cubs and the Red Sox before obviously have garnered a ton of trust.

 

Ive seen the Bryant, Schwarber and Happ picks all criticized...

 

Pretty sure Mookie Betts pick was heavily criticized as well.

I mean, Theo, Jed, & McLeod have hit on the top picks for sure but their overall drafts have been mediocre at best which is really disappointing given what the Red Sox used to do. Of course, the system has changed since then and the money matters way less now.

[Tim]

I love the job Theo + crew have done as much as anyone.

 

However, I feel like they are getting more praise than they deserve for the drafting job they've done with the Cubs. I'm more than willing to give them the benefit of the doubt on the first round college hitter. But what else have they done in the draft with the Cubs that gives anyone confidence that they can identify which toolsy HS OF they should pick? Is it DJ Wilson or someone else I'm missing? Why should I have any more confidence in Richan than the litany of similar pitchers they've taken?

 

This is their seventh draft with the Cubs. We've got a pretty long track record for this front office. I think there is room to question their draft strategy without being outrageous when they go so far away from industry consensus.

 

Obviously, none of us know how this will all pan out. The Cubs have far more resources than we do to evaluate these guys. The industry guys absolutely suffer from some level of groupthink when it comes to the rankings, which leaves room for individual teams to have a much better read on true talent level for certain prospects.

 

All that said, I still find this draft...puzzling so far. The comments leading up to the draft were that they "had to nail" this time because they probably won't have this many high picks again for a while. These picks (past the first round) look pretty risky from the outside. I'll just hope they've been able to see things that others haven't, I guess.

 

There's a matter of degrees here. None of these are the Tyler Colvin pick, and the Cubs have a bunch of picks outside the hardened consensus and in the squishy 20-100 area where there's like 250 guys who can make a case for being worth it, plus the added dimension of signability/pools. They took two toolsy HS OF who had their stock depressed a bit by non-worrisome injuries and who have ceilings worthy of the ~50-75 range that they were drafted, Miami and UCLA aren't exactly recruiting idiots either. If you want to criticize the Richan pick I can at least understand that, given the lack of top line results or premium stuff and the anecdotal likelihood he's not underslot. But the woe is me act because they popped a couple guys who are among the most likely to have large swings on rankings(HS OF who missed a chunk of their senior year) on top of a college bat in the 1st round doesn't resonate. Criticize the drafting outcomes all you want, but the reflexive anger that they didn't draft as if they just averaged out MLB/BA/PG's draft rankings and went down the list is silly.

Are you talking about me or someone else with the "reflexive anger"? Because I'm certainly not angry. Like I say, I think there's room to disagree with the picks without being "angry".

[Transmogrified Tiger]

I love the job Theo + crew have done as much as anyone.

 

However, I feel like they are getting more praise than they deserve for the drafting job they've done with the Cubs. I'm more than willing to give them the benefit of the doubt on the first round college hitter. But what else have they done in the draft with the Cubs that gives anyone confidence that they can identify which toolsy HS OF they should pick? Is it DJ Wilson or someone else I'm missing? Why should I have any more confidence in Richan than the litany of similar pitchers they've taken?

 

This is their seventh draft with the Cubs. We've got a pretty long track record for this front office. I think there is room to question their draft strategy without being outrageous when they go so far away from industry consensus.

 

Obviously, none of us know how this will all pan out. The Cubs have far more resources than we do to evaluate these guys. The industry guys absolutely suffer from some level of groupthink when it comes to the rankings, which leaves room for individual teams to have a much better read on true talent level for certain prospects.

 

All that said, I still find this draft...puzzling so far. The comments leading up to the draft were that they "had to nail" this time because they probably won't have this many high picks again for a while. These picks (past the first round) look pretty risky from the outside. I'll just hope they've been able to see things that others haven't, I guess.

 

There's a matter of degrees here. None of these are the Tyler Colvin pick, and the Cubs have a bunch of picks outside the hardened consensus and in the squishy 20-100 area where there's like 250 guys who can make a case for being worth it, plus the added dimension of signability/pools. They took two toolsy HS OF who had their stock depressed a bit by non-worrisome injuries and who have ceilings worthy of the ~50-75 range that they were drafted, Miami and UCLA aren't exactly recruiting idiots either. If you want to criticize the Richan pick I can at least understand that, given the lack of top line results or premium stuff and the anecdotal likelihood he's not underslot. But the woe is me act because they popped a couple guys who are among the most likely to have large swings on rankings(HS OF who missed a chunk of their senior year) on top of a college bat in the 1st round doesn't resonate. Criticize the drafting outcomes all you want, but the reflexive anger that they didn't draft as if they just averaged out MLB/BA/PG's draft rankings and went down the list is silly.

Are you talking about me or someone else with the "reflexive anger"? Because I'm certainly not angry. Like I say, I think there's room to disagree with the picks without being "angry".

 

No, not you. Several reactions from others if you read back the last 5 pages.

[CaliforniaRaisin]

I love the job Theo + crew have done as much as anyone.

 

However, I feel like they are getting more praise than they deserve for the drafting job they've done with the Cubs. I'm more than willing to give them the benefit of the doubt on the first round college hitter. But what else have they done in the draft with the Cubs that gives anyone confidence that they can identify which toolsy HS OF they should pick? Is it DJ Wilson or someone else I'm missing? Why should I have any more confidence in Richan than the litany of similar pitchers they've taken?

 

This is their seventh draft with the Cubs. We've got a pretty long track record for this front office. I think there is room to question their draft strategy without being outrageous when they go so far away from industry consensus.

 

Obviously, none of us know how this will all pan out. The Cubs have far more resources than we do to evaluate these guys. The industry guys absolutely suffer from some level of groupthink when it comes to the rankings, which leaves room for individual teams to have a much better read on true talent level for certain prospects.

 

All that said, I still find this draft...puzzling so far. The comments leading up to the draft were that they "had to nail" this time because they probably won't have this many high picks again for a while. These picks (past the first round) look pretty risky from the outside. I'll just hope they've been able to see things that others haven't, I guess.

 

There’s just not a big enough sample to say much about their prep OF record. So far they’ve drafted 3 HS OFs in the top 10 rounds (Almora, Wilson, Velázquez). They just don’t go the risky prep route frequently so it’s definitely interesting, I’d even agree with puzzling like you said. The pitching question marks are far more fleshed out and legitimate, in my eyes. That said, the Richan pick fits the MO of this team’s college pitcher picks.

 

FYI, Roederer is a big loss for UCLA. He was expected to be the only freshman starter on an Omaha contender and possibly the best offense in school history. They viewed him as a first rounder in 2021.

[davell]

I was underwhelmed with Hoerner. That was my main issue. But, I'm guessing they cut a deal on him. And he is a guy that's likely a big leaguer. Versatile too. Davis and Roederer are interesting picks. Didn't see them coming. So that's going to be fun to monitor. I guess they're both slow burns and may take a while to show us anything to get excited on. They may struggle for a few years. Richan seems like the typical Cubs pitching draft pick. If anything, he's the most disappointing guy for me lol.

 

Hopefully they find some upside arms today. But, I'm pretty happy they took 3 bats yesterday.

 

Personally, I'm hoping we're at slot currently(or better) and that we take another HS kid or 2 today. I'm hoping for senior signs in 7-10. But, my guess is it'll be 9-10.

[CaliforniaRaisin]

Fangraphs[/url]"]Richan fits with recent Cubs’ drafts modus operandi for mid-round selections as a polished, strike-throwing college starter. Four Corners scouts have told us Davis wants $1.2 to $1.5 million, so he’s probably $250-$500K over slot at No. 62. He could be a monster if he hits, but the bat is raw. We had Roederer evaluated in round Nos. 3 through 5, but his bat is advanced and the Cubs certainly round up harder on guys with good hit tools more than other orgs do, and that probably played a role where Hoerner is concerned, too.

 

Stengths:

 

• Hoerner: 70 runner w/elite contact
  
• Davis: Upside, 6 raw, 6 run
  
• Roederer: Advanced bat, CF fit
  
• Richan: 90-94, back-end SP

[craig]

....what else have they done in the draft with the Cubs that gives anyone confidence that they can identify which toolsy HS OF they should pick? Is it DJ Wilson or someone else I'm missing? Why should I have any more confidence in Richan than the litany of similar pitchers they've taken?

 

This is their seventh draft with the Cubs. We've got a pretty long track record for this front office. I think there is room to question their draft strategy without being outrageous when they go so far away from industry consensus.

 

Obviously, none of us know how this will all pan out. The Cubs have far more resources than we do to evaluate these guys. The industry guys absolutely suffer from some level of groupthink when it comes to the rankings, which leaves room for individual teams to have a much better read on true talent level for certain prospects.

 

All that said, I still find this draft...puzzling so far. The comments leading up to the draft were that they "had to nail" this time because they probably won't have this many high picks again for a while. These picks (past the first round) look pretty risky from the outside. I'll just hope they've been able to see things that others haven't, I guess.

 

Puzzling for sure, and risky for sure. I agree, there is nothing in the MacLeod's Cubs drafting that suggests they've got any notable insights outside of top-10 picks. Several thoughts:

1. They have seemed to do pretty well with Eloy, Gleyber, Amaya. Maybe their scouting for teenage bats is good? I hope it will turn out so here.

2. Floor, ceiling, risk. I guess risk is the price of upside. Perhaps by taking a couple of shots in the 2nd, you hope one of them clicks? Pretty much no-such-thing as safe winners in the 60-80 range.

3. Obviously these are all pure, pure scouting picks. Cubs must think they see elements in the pitcher; scouting. The HS OFers, that's really pure scouting picks. Well, just like Wilson was, and Hanneman was, and Hudson was.....

4. Cubs have known they had a bundle of picks in the 60-80 range. So I have to assume they've spent a lot, lot, lot, lot of time reviewing these guys. I assume BA and PG and mlb media guys spend a lot of time on the top-end, first rounders and stuff. Not sure they have resources or focus on 2nd-50 group. But Cubs theoretically invested a whole lot of time in that part of the draft.

5. If some scouts love Davis + Roederer, and seem them as top-80 guys, do they share that with BA, the same way they share views on first-rounders? If you want to steal Davis or Roederer in round 4, do you tell the media you think he's a 1st-day guy? I dunno, and wonder how much of the media ranking is sourced from scouting sources.

 

Whatever, time will tell. Would be pretty fun if Hoerner emerges as a true-blue hitter who adds some power as well.

 

And hope the two OFers both magically turn into hitters.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

[tweet]

[/tweet]

[CaliforniaRaisin]

[tweet]

[/tweet]

 

That should allow one overslot arm, around $1 million in bonus. Maybe Slade Cecconi or Brett Hansen on the high end but it will more likely be a guy ranked by most publications in the 101-200 range, like Jeremiah Estrada last year. Champlain is interesting and I liked Owen Sharts for the name alone.

 

[CaliforniaRaisin]

 

That is very weird.

[r_mack]

I love the job Theo + crew have done as much as anyone.

 

However, I feel like they are getting more praise than they deserve for the drafting job they've done with the Cubs. I'm more than willing to give them the benefit of the doubt on the first round college hitter. But what else have they done in the draft with the Cubs that gives anyone confidence that they can identify which toolsy HS OF they should pick? Is it DJ Wilson or someone else I'm missing? Why should I have any more confidence in Richan than the litany of similar pitchers they've taken?

 

This is their seventh draft with the Cubs. We've got a pretty long track record for this front office. I think there is room to question their draft strategy without being outrageous when they go so far away from industry consensus.

 

Obviously, none of us know how this will all pan out. The Cubs have far more resources than we do to evaluate these guys. The industry guys absolutely suffer from some level of groupthink when it comes to the rankings, which leaves room for individual teams to have a much better read on true talent level for certain prospects.

 

All that said, I still find this draft...puzzling so far. The comments leading up to the draft were that they "had to nail" this time because they probably won't have this many high picks again for a while. These picks (past the first round) look pretty risky from the outside. I'll just hope they've been able to see things that others haven't, I guess.

 

There’s just not a big enough sample to say much about their prep OF record. So far they’ve drafted 3 HS OFs in the top 10 rounds (Almora, Wilson, Velázquez). They just don’t go the risky prep route frequently so it’s definitely interesting, I’d even agree with puzzling like you said. The pitching question marks are far more fleshed out and legitimate, in my eyes. That said, the Richan pick fits the MO of this team’s college pitcher picks.

 

FYI, Roederer is a big loss for UCLA. He was expected to be the only freshman starter on an Omaha contender and possibly the best offense in school history. They viewed him as a first rounder in 2021.

I think Roederer is the pick I like the most. A guy that’s been injured and might have gone higher if he were healthy. Wouldn’t be surprised if the Cubs saw something when he was healthy.

[craig]

Fangraphs[/url]"].... We had Roederer evaluated in round Nos. 3 through 5, but his bat is advanced and the [highlight=yellow]Cubs certainly round up harder on guys with good hit tools more than other orgs do[/highlight], and that probably played a .... where Hoerner is concerned, too.....

 

Hit tool is essential. Even HR's depends more on the hit tool than power; you can't hit HR's if you don't hit the ball on the nose with reasonable frequency. Can compromise on arm, speed, even defense, but not hit.

 

Roederer, supposedly a hit guy, seems like a natural and interesting pick.

 

But Davis is the odd pick. Fangraph says Cubs especially focus on hit-tool, yet took Davis, even though media scouting variably talks up all the other tools except for hit. And even though there might be overslot involved.

 

I think it's pretty obvious that the Cubs do not agree with the 20/40 hit eval on Davis. Obviously they don't KNOW, but they must clearly scout the possibility/capacity for Davis to end up with good hit. Should be interesting to see how these guys play out. Hitting mlb is so, so tought, though; odds that either of these 2nd-round guys are going to end up being quality big-league bats has to be pretty modest.

 

But, sometimes champions are teams that get lucky with unlikely guys.

[javy knows my name]

I remember a couple years ago some team used a late round pick to draft a kid as a gesture. I think he had like a career-ending injury or something. Some light googling hasn't helped me out - anyone know what I'm talking about?

[Named After Maddux]

I remember a couple years ago some team used a late round pick to draft a kid as a gesture. I think he had like a career-ending injury or something. Some light googling hasn't helped me out - anyone know what I'm talking about?

 

It was the Diamondbacks and they drafted Cory Hahn. I believe they’ve since named the 34rd round selection the Cory Hahn selection in his honor.

[CaliforniaRaisin]

I remember a couple years ago some team used a late round pick to draft a kid as a gesture. I think he had like a career-ending injury or something. Some light googling hasn't helped me out - anyone know what I'm talking about?

 

Cory Hahn? I believe the Diamondbacks drafted him, he was an ASU kid.

[CaliforniaRaisin]

[CaliforniaRaisin]

 

Lemahieu

 

College bat who squares everything up and settles as an above average defensive 2B

 

A guy that's like a 1.5fWAR player outside of Coors?

 

Listen, I invented hating DJ Lemahieu, I don’t really want to get into the hangover effect because we’re making crude comparisons and not pinpointing exact outcome. I don’t think Hoerner is going to win a batting title even if he gets traded to Colorado and I’m clearly talking about the profile independent of park/league factors that might influence it.

 

As a prospect, I thought of a better defensive version (ie possibly still a SS) of Scott Kingery.

[jersey cubs fan]

 

That is very weird.

The kids choice or the team's willingness to play along?

[CaliforniaRaisin]

 

That is very weird.

The kids choice or the team's willingness to play along?

 

The team’s willingness, with a top ten overall pick.

[toonsterwu]

I love the job Theo + crew have done as much as anyone.

 

However, I feel like they are getting more praise than they deserve for the drafting job they've done with the Cubs. I'm more than willing to give them the benefit of the doubt on the first round college hitter. But what else have they done in the draft with the Cubs that gives anyone confidence that they can identify which toolsy HS OF they should pick? Is it DJ Wilson or someone else I'm missing? Why should I have any more confidence in Richan than the litany of similar pitchers they've taken?

 

This is their seventh draft with the Cubs. We've got a pretty long track record for this front office. I think there is room to question their draft strategy without being outrageous when they go so far away from industry consensus.

 

Obviously, none of us know how this will all pan out. The Cubs have far more resources than we do to evaluate these guys. The industry guys absolutely suffer from some level of groupthink when it comes to the rankings, which leaves room for individual teams to have a much better read on true talent level for certain prospects.

 

All that said, I still find this draft...puzzling so far. The comments leading up to the draft were that they "had to nail" this time because they probably won't have this many high picks again for a while. These picks (past the first round) look pretty risky from the outside. I'll just hope they've been able to see things that others haven't, I guess.

 

I would add that Theo and Co., along with his branches, often look for a certain type/mold. For lack of better way of saying it, they look for the next Ellsbury (certainly, one can say the next Betts) and Pedroia, and while there is value in that, there's also a risk of getting too locked in on a type. I had, in the back of my mind, wondered if Jake McCarthy would be the pick because of all the comparisons to Ellsbury/AJ Pollock.

 

I don't think any of the critiques are necessarily off or wrong. The system has floundered in recent years, and while some of that was initially blamed on trades, the reality is that there were massive gaps in the system that were apparent and their drafting hasn't filled said gaps. Part of the problem was the immense focus on finding arms, which led to holes (and they still don't have that many quality arms). They've had a long history with the Cubs now, and it's been pretty scattershot after the top picks. They really haven't done a great job identifying arms, and the top two arms they've drafted are all with other organizations (I think) ... Paul Blackburn and Zack Godley.

 

To be honest, I like how this draft looks so far in comparison to the last couple of years. Part of it was that they had two drafts where they went hard after pitching (and still might not have much). What I like is the combination of ceiling/floor that they seemingly have taken. I think every system needs to occasionally gamble on a Davis type, a guy who looks so tantalizing ... if he can put it together. I like the fact that Hoerner, whose ceiling is still debatable, might be able to move fast. I don't really love Richan, particularly with somewhat of a glut of arms in the levels he's likely to come in at.

 

It's not a draft I really love so far, but the balance is a bit better. I viewed the nailing it comments as more a need to get guys in that can move up the ladder, moreso than finding stars.