Regular Show

Just stop horsefeathering doing it. If you want to talk about Keith Law and his ranking that's fine, but don't deny your post had nothing to do with what I wrote and posted.

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... 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.

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).

I would go with Russell. His ceiling was higher. It’s (highly) debatable that it would have worked out without the injury, but schwarber still having the ability to play catcher once or twice a week would have helped his value quite a bit. Schwarber has pretty much plateaued, which I don’t think anyone expected given how quickly he moved through the minors. Russell has gotten actively worse. Yeah, Russell has gotten worse and his approach at the plate is terrible (I mean it's been bad for multiple seasons now). Schwarber was suppose to be a middle of the order bat and I'm not sure how his defense would rate at C (probably not great) if he stayed there. I really feel like the devastating knee injury in 2016 changed his trajectory and development. I think Russell was perceived as having the higher overall ceiling with a greater chance to make more All-Star games and have a longer, more productive career.

From the latest Klaw chat: 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.

[tweet] [/tweet]What we all expected... Not a huge loss and maybe the wires got crossed between what the agent/player wanted and what the Cubs thought he would sign for. [tweet] [/tweet]I remember this well. Not fun times.

Nico back at SS. 1 for 2 with a single so far.

[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.

[tweet] [/tweet] It will require some calibration and tweaks no doubt, but this is infinitely better over shitty umps calling balls/strikes. The technology can only improve from here.

[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

Forgot to post these lol: [tweet] [/tweet][tweet] [/tweet][tweet] [/tweet]

[tweet] [/tweet]I heard that Derek Jeter REALLY wanted this kid at #4 instead of taking JJ Bleday, but didn't want to overrule his other scouts and pull a "MJ as meddling owner/exec" move. He's already gotten so much bad press (and rightfully so). It's early, but the kid looks amazing so far and should make every Top 100 prospect list. Regarding Wyatt Hendrie, I'm not sure what happened but I don't think it's a big loss if he doesn't sign. Yeah, the opportunity cost hurts and the Cubs could've spent that money on someone else. I'm curious to find out what happened (again, if he doesn't sign).

[tweet] [/tweet] The deadline is this Friday. I figured if the Cubs didn't sign Hendrie by this point he's not signing. Maybe something came up in his physical? Maybe he thinks he can improve his draft stock and get drafted higher in the coming years?

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.

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).

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).

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.

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.

[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.

I'm not complaining about the performance of this Cubs FO, in terms, of hitting on 1st round draft picks even with Almora and Happ being somewhat disappointing. They've done a phenomenal job drafting at the top from '12-15. I wanted Carlos Correa in '12 and probably would've taken Almora too (I liked Giolito a lot even though he needed TJS), KB all the way in '13, I probably would've taken Conforto but I could be convinced to go with Schwarber (especially with the savings in pool money) in '14, wanted Benintendi really badly in '15 and would've taken Happ easily... I complain about McLeod and how they've performed in the later rounds (supplemental 1st and later) and especially in 2017. They're not great at identifying/developing pitchers and they've admitted as much. Hopefully, the new Pitch Lab and willingness to draft pitchers that don't fit the classic prototype will help improve that rate. The Hannemann pick was a bad choice, in retrospect. I remember thinking it was weird, but at least it's underslot because he's so old and kinda raw. That did not happen. They keep banking on these relatively raw athletic players in the draft, but I think they're doing a better job with Brennen Davis. I wasn't high on the pick (I hated it actually), but they rebuilt his swing and he's added good muscle and strength. Apparently, has a great work ethic and takes instruction really well. He still might flameout in the high minors, but he looks good so far. With the bonus pool arrangement, you can't simply compartmentalize the first round as its own thing, there's a relationship between the first 10 rounds and any other overslots that impacts the amount of ceiling you can add, especially once they started drafting at the end of the rounds instead of the beginning. With the 2017 draft it's still entirely too early to tell how well their plan for that fell out, with few exceptions(RIP Austin Filiere's career). If anything, it's the inverse of the above complaint where the top picks don't look super promising for now, but there's interesting depth that didn't come to fruition in previous classes. Which is what you'd expect from a team with the smallest draft pool that has picks 27 and 30. Yeah, I get that regarding the relationship between the 1st round pick and later picks in terms of draft pool money and going overslot. I still think there was talent available even in the later rounds (at slot), but the Cubs' scouts just weren't good at identifying it for whatever reason. If you go back and study the draft history for other teams you'll see them find a good reliever in the later rounds and you can certainly spend money on a HS pitcher/player in the later rounds if you decide to go underslot at the top. Regarding the 2017 draft I'm not happy with how it's progressing so far. I wanted Nate Pearson at 27, but I did like Little a lot and I can't deny that. I had no interest in Lange, and would've taken a position player at 30 after taking Pearson. We'll see what happens in the next couple years. Maybe Jeremiah Estrada breaks out and becomes a top prospect? He's only 20 (turns 21 in November). I'm not optimistic, but there is still time for this draft class. Also, I believe there was a mandate from Theo to focus primarily on pitching that year. So some of the blame falls on him.

They have had a basically unprecedented hit rate(which absolutely includes Schwarber, Happ, and Almora) with first round picks, if you're expecting better you're expecting fantasy. Draft picks fail, as a rule. Even those at the very top of the draft. To draft 4 consecutive major leaguers who have had some level of sustained success there is incredible. Those 4 drafts also turned out Bote, Godley, and Cease. Especially in a world with draft pools, you aren't going to see aggregate results any better, it's a matter now of seeing if their last few drafts will pan out to lower ceiling/more depth once they lost a bunch of pool money/1st round position in 2016+. I'm not complaining about the performance of this Cubs FO, in terms, of hitting on 1st round draft picks even with Almora and Happ being somewhat disappointing. They've done a phenomenal job drafting at the top from '12-15. I wanted Carlos Correa in '12 and probably would've taken Almora too (I liked Giolito a lot even though he needed TJS), KB all the way in '13, I probably would've taken Conforto but I could be convinced to go with Schwarber (especially with the savings in pool money) in '14, wanted Benintendi really badly in '15 and would've taken Happ easily... I complain about McLeod and how they've performed in the later rounds (supplemental 1st and later) and especially in 2017. They're not great at identifying/developing pitchers and they've admitted as much. Hopefully, the new Pitch Lab and willingness to draft pitchers that don't fit the classic prototype will help improve that rate. The Hannemann pick was a bad choice, in retrospect. I remember thinking it was weird, but at least it's underslot because he's so old and kinda raw. That did not happen. They keep banking on these relatively raw athletic players in the draft, but I think they're doing a better job with Brennen Davis. I wasn't high on the pick (I hated it actually), but they rebuilt his swing and he's added good muscle and strength. Apparently, has a great work ethic and takes instruction really well. He still might flameout in the high minors, but he looks good so far.

Well, I was wrong about the Cubs experimenting with Nico in CF this offseason lol. I'm glad I was wrong! Really curious to see how natural it is for him. His speed and great instincts should help with the transition. It's not the easiest position, but some players say playing CF "feels easier" than LF/RF because they can see the ball coming off the bat really well in CF. I disagree with that assessment. I also really hope I'm wrong about the Cubs pushing him aggressively and calling Nico up on 9/1.

Good article. I was trying to find it earlier. Highly recommend it: https://bastian.mlblogs.com/ive-really-bought-in-a-q-a-with-cubs-shortstop-prospect-nico-hoerner-2a4849e3deab He's played second base before and I was pretty sure he played the position some in college.

https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2019/07/minor-mlb-transactions-cubs-release-jacob-hannemann.html

[tweet] [/tweet]Nice batflip by the champ. https://twitter.com/rustindodd/status/1148424293161885696 That's pretty good lol.