CubsWin

Book it So, a 5-3 Cubs victory. I'll take that.

There should? What data leads you to believe that? Is that for every season or just at this point in time?

"Need", if you want to call it that, was only one of a variety of conditions, the icing on the cake or tiebreaking condition, if you will. And it was only listed because of the extremes involved. Extremes in the current make-up of the organization that are historic in nature. The other conditions like if there aren't any very good college bats available and no other non-injured pitchers the Cubs like better are all about BPA. Ignoring them is misrepresenting my post and creating somewhat of a strawman. Some posters here were jumping on the "no pitchers, ever" bandwagon, and I'm not sold on that dismissive statement. I believe, given the right conditions, taking a pitcher with a top ten pick, even an injured pitcher, could be the best use of that asset. I believe Matuella or Aiken would be the BPA given the conditions I listed. MLB currently has them ranked 5th and 6th, rankings that take into account their recent injuries, so, at this point, they agree. Plus, since the injuries and subsequent surgeries happened in March, there might even be some data as to how their surgeries went and some early medical results for teams to go on by the time of the draft in early June. Perhaps I'm out on an island on this one, and sure as hell could be wrong, but I'm not dismissing them as possibilities just yet. Edited to correct spelling.

No scouting report that I can remember calls CJ a #1 starter. They pretty much all consider his ceiling to be a #2 with the floor of a high leverage reliever. In MLB's current top 100, there are 24 pitchers ranked ahead of CJ. Of those 24, a handful are projected to have a ceiling of a true #1 starter, someone who has a decent chance of becoming a top 30 starting pitcher in all of baseball. CJ may be a #1 prospect in the sense that he is the Cubs #1 (top-ranked) pitching prospect, but he's not projected to be a #1 starter in the bigs even at the most optimistic projection. Those guys are Giolito, Bundy, Cole, etc. or already established guys like Kershaw, Price, Zimmerman, etc. When I see discussions like this I tend to get the feeling that we're operating on the silly ass notion that there are like 5-10 "true" #1 starters in all of baseball or something. I'd say there are, by definition, about 30 #1 starters in the MLB. Lets say we choose a way to quantify the best pitchers and the guys that fall 25-35 on that list are all pretty much equal. Then, that year, there'd be 35 #1 starters. You can quantify that performance lots of different ways and come up with a different list of guys based on which method you choose, but there will always be around 30. Now there can be several tiers within that 30 or so guys, but the idea of #1 starter for me is by definition a top 30ish starter. So, for me, no I'm not referring to that. Maybe some others are, I don't know. Regardless, CJ Edwards is not projected to be a top 30 starter in all of baseball from the scouting reports I've read. Maybe he will become one, but, right now there are over 20 pitchers ranked ahead of him on the prospects lists alone, so it seems pretty far-fetched to expect him to one day be a consistent top 30 starter in all of baseball. Can you point to the scouting reports that had Kluber as the #2 pitcher in all of baseball behind Kershaw? or #1 potential for Quintana, Shark (arm strength was there, but didn't have the pedigree you're talking about), Zimmerman wasn't viewed that way until recently, King Felix wasn't a huge bonus IFA guy iirc, or Cueto or Teheran, Chris Archer was a fifth rounder, Shields was a 16th rounder, Keuchel was a 7th, Lester was a mid-second, as was Tyson Ross, Roark was a 25th(!) rounder, Buehrle beats that as a 38th round pick. They all finished in the top 30 in pitching fWAR last year. You don't need to draft pitching high to find good pitching. Agreed. Not being a high draft pick doesn't preclude you from being elite at some point in your career. But what I'm wondering is, what are the success rates of the pitchers with the high pedigree that are taken with the high draft pick or signed to a big bonus IFA contract versus the success rates of those that are not? I don't know. If it's equal, then it's clearly not worth the risk. If it isn't equal, then this year, with the draft conditions being what they are and the Cubs organization being where it is, this might be the time to take that risk.

Agreed. To be a top 30 starter, you don't need to be drafted early in the 1st round or a big money IFA. And you can find a guy and help him refine his stuff/command like Arrieta and perhaps unearth a top-30ish guy that way. Lots of ways of getting there. I like the Cubs approach of late as well. I think they've been very smart about it and that it will likely pay off for them down the road. I also like the idea of having a staff made up of guys that would be 2s and 3s on most other teams. In more normalized conditions (where your organization isn't teeming with an historic level of hitting prospects and there's more really good college bats available at pick #9), that's the way I would want the Cubs to go. But this draft is a little different for a couple of reasons. Maybe this year is the exception with the way things are falling out.

No scouting report that I can remember calls CJ a #1 starter. They pretty much all consider his ceiling to be a #2 with the floor of a high leverage reliever. In MLB's current top 100, there are 24 pitchers ranked ahead of CJ. Of those 24, a handful are projected to have a ceiling of a true #1 starter, someone who has a decent chance of becoming a top 30 starting pitcher in all of baseball. CJ may be a #1 prospect in the sense that he is the Cubs #1 (top-ranked) pitching prospect, but he's not projected to be a #1 starter in the bigs even at the most optimistic projection. Those guys are Giolito, Bundy, Cole, etc. or already established guys like Kershaw, Price, Zimmerman, etc. When I see discussions like this I tend to get the feeling that we're operating on the silly ass notion that there are like 5-10 "true" #1 starters in all of baseball or something. Yep. I think you're over-valuing CJ Edwards. What scouting reports have been referring to him as a #1 starter type, a top 30 pitcher in all of baseball? If you know of one, pass it along. Seriously. I'm a big fan of his and would love to read it. Not sarcastic.

No scouting report that I can remember calls CJ a #1 starter. They pretty much all consider his ceiling to be a #2 with the floor of a high leverage reliever. In MLB's current top 100, there are 24 pitchers ranked ahead of CJ. Of those 24, a handful are projected to have a ceiling of a true #1 starter, someone who has a decent chance of becoming a top 30 starting pitcher in all of baseball. CJ may be a #1 prospect in the sense that he is the Cubs #1 (top-ranked) pitching prospect, but he's not projected to be a #1 starter in the bigs even at the most optimistic projection. Those guys are Giolito, Bundy, Cole, etc. or already established guys like Kershaw, Price, Zimmerman, etc. When I see discussions like this I tend to get the feeling that we're operating on the silly ass notion that there are like 5-10 "true" #1 starters in all of baseball or something. I'd say there are, by definition, about 30 #1 starters in the MLB. Lets say we choose a way to quantify the best pitchers and the guys that fall 25-35 on that list are all pretty much equal. Then, that year, there'd be 35 #1 starters. You can quantify that performance lots of different ways and come up with a different list of guys based on which method you choose, but there will always be around 30. Now there can be several tiers within that 30 or so guys, but the idea of #1 starter for me is by definition a top 30ish starter. So, for me, no I'm not referring to that. Maybe some others are, I don't know. Regardless, CJ Edwards is not projected to be a top 30 starter in all of baseball from the scouting reports I've read. Maybe he will become one, but, right now there are over 20 pitchers ranked ahead of him on the prospects lists alone, so it seems pretty far-fetched to expect him to one day be a consistent top 30 starter in all of baseball.

No scouting report that I can remember calls CJ a #1 starter. They pretty much all consider his ceiling to be a #2 with the floor of a high leverage reliever. In MLB's current top 100, there are 24 pitchers ranked ahead of CJ. Of those 24, a handful are projected to have a ceiling of a true #1 starter, someone who has a decent chance of becoming a top 30 starting pitcher in all of baseball. CJ may be a #1 prospect in the sense that he is the Cubs #1 (top-ranked) pitching prospect, but he's not projected to be a #1 starter in the bigs even at the most optimistic projection. Those guys are Giolito, Bundy, Cole, etc. or already established guys like Kershaw, Price, Zimmerman, etc.

When was the last time someone traded away a young #1 starter? Truly asking. Trying to remember. David Price? I guess I should have been more specific on what I meant by young. I was thinking like a 24 or 25 year old #1 starter. I don't think many 24 or 25 #1 starting pitchers, or stud hitters get traded. I think you trade your "surplus" hitting for quality pitching, not superstars. That was my thinking as well. It has happened twice in the last decade apparently. Latos and Beckett. But that's not nearly often enough for me to make my strategy of obtaining an ace to draft hitters exclusively in the first round and then trade for a #1 later once he's established in the big leagues. So I come back to you need to draft your aces, your #1s. You can still draft hitters exclusively in the 1st round and try to mine/develop an ace type pitcher in rounds 2 and later. You can also forgo having a #1 pitcher who is still inexpensive during his prime and just sign guys in their early 30s (sometimes 29) as free agents to front your rotation. But clearly, it's preferable (by virtue of how often they aren't traded away) to have the young stud ace under team control throughout his prime and relatively inexpensive. That's obvious. The big problem with that is investing the high draft pick in a pitcher and, in this case, one who has already had TJS. Call me a gambler, a dreamer, an optimist or a fool, but I think rolling the dice on someone like Matt Matuella or Brady Aiken with the 9th pick, if they even fall that far, is the way to go. TINSTAPP and TJS be damned. At least with this specific set of circumstances. 1. The Cubs are at this point in time historically top heavy and deep with hitting prospects. 2. The Cubs are about to get good and will very likely not have a high draft pick for the foreseeable future. 3. This isn't a good draft for really good college bats. 4. The one thing the Cubs system lacks is a true #1 stud pitching prospect. Given those conditions, I'm for taking a chance on Matuella or Aiken.

When was the last time someone traded away a young #1 starter? Truly asking. Trying to remember. David Price? I guess I should have been more specific on what I meant by young. I was thinking like a 24 or 25 year old #1 starter. Not often. The one that pops to mind immediately for me is Smoltz. But I'm not sure he was viewed as a #1 when he was traded. There's the Latos example from earlier. Cashner. There was Kazmir when he was traded from the Mets. Beckett was still pretty young, but not that young. Thanks, Tim. Kazmir and Cashner hadn't been established as #1s in the majors at the time they were traded. They were potential #1s though. But Josh Beckett checks all the boxes. High draft pedigree (#2 overall), established stud starter in the bigs and was 25 when traded. Perfect. Thanks.

When was the last time someone traded away a young #1 starter? Truly asking. Trying to remember. Mat Latos. Twice. Latos works. At the time the Padres traded him he was kind of a #1 and he was 24. He's probably a #2 now. Thanks, good catch.

When was the last time someone traded away a young #1 starter? Truly asking. Trying to remember. David Price? I guess I should have been more specific on what I meant by young. I was thinking like a 24 or 25 year old #1 starter.

I'd like to get people's opinions on this. What would you rather have: a young stud (23 or 24 yrs old) #1 starting pitcher who has had TJS once already and is cheap or a 30/31 year old already established #1 who has no significant injury history signed as a free agent for an expensive 6 year deal?

When was the last time someone traded away a young #1 starter? Truly asking. Trying to remember.

I don't know. None of college hitters really excite me. Happ doesn't really have a position. I think this is a golden opportunity for the Cubs to land a high pedigree pitcher. Jeff Hoffman hasn't pitched as a pro yet, but he's still ranked as Toronto's 4th best prospect and Toronto's system is pretty good. Even without throwing one pro pitch, he's ranked 88th overall by MLB. Giolito is the poster boy for pitchers who have returned strong post-TJS and have retained top prospect status, but there are others. Dylan Bundy has come back. He's ranked 21st by MLB. Jameson Taillon is ranked 32nd. MLB only dropped Matuella and Aiken a few spots in their Top 50 draft prospects still ranking them 5th and 6th respectively. It's a risk. Every pitcher is a risk. But with the expected success of the Cubs in the very near future, high draft picks will be scarce for a while. This may be the last chance for the Cubs to add a potential ace to their system for quite some time. There doesn't seem to be any standout hitters that will be available at #9 and the Cubs system is still pretty flush with quality hitters even after every position is filled in Chicago. The Cubs didn't seem averse to taking Dylan Cease, though that wasn't at #9 overall. If the conditions are right when the Cubs make their pick, I say grab one of Aiken or Matuella. The only reason not to is if the Cubs like one of the available pitchers who haven't been injured more than those two. That said, I wanted them to take an arm instead of Bryant and Schwarber and I'm sure glad they didn't now, so what the [expletive] do I know...?

I was at that game. It was every bit as impressive of an at-bat as McLeod made it out to be. He's looked good in the field as well. Spoke with the director of pro scouting for the Cubs, Joe Bohringer while in Mesa. Joe brought Torres up without me asking. They're high on him. Said he ranks among the Cubs top ten prospects as an 18-year-old. Said he may move to 2B at some point, but he's got a chance to stick at SS.

Look, don't get me wrong, I like Johnson. I also get the idea of voting for Johnson. That said, those numbers, would, though, be somewhat my point as to why I have a hard time voting Johnson - his "improvement" still led to a 4+ walk rate, and last I checked the game logs, it wasn't like the 2nd half of the year was tilted walk wise (that is, it's not like he had several games with monster walk rates and some with none). Can he live with a high 3 to low 4 walk rate? The stuff is probably good enough that he can probably get a couple year's look with it as a starter, but long run, seems tough. Is it possible he develops like say, Chris Tillman did (a fairly decent comp, I think) than Chris Carpenter? Again, possible. Overall, though, I simply think Underwood has better upside (and I didn't follow that close this year to know if these reports are that accurate, so maybe those who followed a bit more have a better grasp and can argue against that notion), and Johnson just doesn't seem like he took a major enough step for me when he's what, 3 years older than Underwood? Everyone views things their own way, but I think Underwood's ceiling is better than Stinnett, Tseng, Sands, Steele, and he's had some performance record in the minors, so I think Underwood is a clear notch or two ahead of that foursome for me. Stinnett's the closest, but having watched him a few times at Maryland - I think there might be a bit more ceiling than most are acknowledging, but admittedly, he was erratic at times. He's a raw college senior, which makes it tough. Can his secondary stuff take a tick forward? My gut feeling on his final season at Maryland was that he caught a lot of people by surprise with his velocity and solid stuff, but it didn't feel like blow-away stuff, and watching his 2 games against UVA closely, it just didn't seem like plus stuff (yes, he notched, uh, 9 or 10 K's in that first one, but it never felt to me like the UVA hitters were definitely over-matched). Tseng's a prove it guy for me, much as I want to be biased in his favor for personal reasons. It seems like there's enough consistency in reporting that his stuff is fairly mediocre. He may end up being Hendricks to these guys with higher ceilings, but he's going to have to prove it up the ladder for me to justify a high ranking. I was that way about Hendricks, and it's a similar vein to my thinking on guys like Torreyes. That's just me on certain guys with certain profiles. Sands/Steele - haven't seen many people suggest huge ceilings for either guy, so I just can't put them ahead of Underwood when I think he has a better ceiling and has some performance record to go back on. Steele was also coming off, uh, back problems? Would like to see a full-season out of them before pushing them hard up the rankings. You may be right in a year - maybe Underwood has flamed out/maybe Sands/Steele have taken major steps forward (I mean, gut feeling ... I think Sands is a solid top 10 prospect next season on account of improvement (and not just graduations)).. I just have a hard time justifying placing guys that, as of now, I view as having lower ceilings ahead of a guy I view as having a better ceiling and at least some positive minor league performance records (and age-wise, is about the same ... off the top, isn't Underwood roughly Sands age?). Well said, toonster. This is basically how I feel as well. Look, all of these guys have question marks. Only Johnson and Underwood have extensive playing time as a professional (Tseng has just over 100 IP, while the rest have just gotten their feet wet). Underwood is 20 and will be pitching in A+ this season. Johnson will be 24 in two months and just finished up AA last season. Underwood was drafted as a raw athletic pitcher with all the tools to be a TOR/MOR, he just needed to develop. It appears he is doing just that. The scouting reports and his numbers across the board have gotten better every season. Johnson was a more polished college pitcher with very strong present day skills/stuff and a bit of an injury-history. Johnson's control had a setback last year but he turned it around in the 2nd half. Both are good. For me, Underwood has the higher upside, greater developmental arc with more time to still develop, no injury history to date and is showing noticeable improvement every year. Johnson is closer to the majors but is also closer to his developmental arc flattening out. He struggled with his command last season, plus, he's had a major arm injury in the past. If I had to choose, and that's the whole point of playing this prospect ranking game, I think the choice, while close, is still pretty clear. I'll take the over 3 years younger, higher upside, improving every year Duane Underwood over the very talented but possibly plateauing, almost 24 year old who struggled with his command last season Pierce Johnson.

Looks like PJ has a leg up on #9, but for me it's pretty clear. The upside of Underwood tips the scales in his favor. Johnson's control problems at this stage is discouraging. Underwood has a ways to go, but he's got the FB velocity, the body and the raw stuff to be a #2. That carries it for me. Plus he's getting some prospect ranking love by guys who know a lot more than I do. PJ? Not so much.

I usually lean towards ceiling in prospect rankings, and I believe that Torres has a pretty high floor as well, but I need to see him in full season ball before I can put him ahead of what McKinney did as a 19-year-old in High-A.

Yes, on non-game days you can access the practice fields and possibly mornings of game days as well. So since you'll be there before games start up, you should be good.

Gutierrez sounds intriguing. If he can't establish residency and be declared an IFA by June 15th, the 2015 class just got one deeper.

I guess some people missed the intended tongue-in-cheek tone. Sorry about that. Didn't think anyone would ever assume I was seriously putting stock in nailing a Super Bowl prediction. Just thought it was funny that Jed got it on the nose. Here's hoping he gets some more of his prognostications right this season...

This is neither analysis or insight. Just something fun. There's no assertion made.

http://espn.go.com/blog/chicago/cubs/post/_/id/28632/hoyer-qa-expectations-are-the-fun-part?ex_cid=espnapi_public

All front offices are, too some degree, prognosticators. The more accurate they are at predicting future performance, the better they are at getting the right players at the right time and price. To that end, Cubs fans might find the last question of a Q&A between Jed Hoyer and ESPN Cubs beat writer Jesse Rogers of interest released earlier today. "JR: Last thing, I know we’re talking on Sunday but people are going to read this on Monday or Tuesday or later in the week, give me a final score for your beloved Patriots against the Seahawks and we’ll see how it turns out after the fact. JH: With my New England roots I’m going with the Pats and will say they win by four and it will be a great game. This is the matchup that we wanted and expected all season. I think the Patriots win by four. Hopefully I don’t look bad tomorrow morning." Jed nailed it to the number. The Patriots won by 4 in the most unlikely of ways. The Seahawks had driven the ball down to the half yard line with a miraculous catch and a powerful and dominant run by Marshawn Lynch. One more hand-off to Lynch and the Seahawks will likely win the Super Bowl. Cameras showed Tom Brady looking forlorn. It was all but in the books. At that point in time, what would you say was more likely: the Patriots winning that game or the Cubs winning the NL Central this season? Here's to another unlikely result happening this season. Hopefully, Hoyer has made the same bold prediction that his All-Star 1B has. He seems to have a knack for prognostication...