Cub's Prospect Watch And Development Discussion Thread

[beckdawg]

It is baseball there are of course going to be cases where a #25 pick will pan out better than a #1 pick. Again you are relying on anomalies and not averages here.

http://viewfromthebleachers.com/blog/2012/08/23/success-rate-of-mlb-draft-picks-by-slot/

There are also going to be cases where a team heavy with FA's might win a WS. But again we are talking averages here not anomalies.

I will take the empiricism of history and over 100 years of evidence that farm systems combine with timely free agents bring sustained success over the randomness of the Yankees winning it once, even though they also had HOF'er like Jeter, Cano, and Rivera as the main cogs on that team all products of the farm.

You're missing an aspect here. All of this was prior to the new CBA which drastically changed the draft. In the past someone outside the top 10 could offer way over slot to stop a player from going to college. In essence, if a player felt they would be a top 5 pick after a year or two in college they would hold out for top 5 money and say they wouldn't sign unless x amount of money was given which would scare some teams off given they may not have been a top tier talent yet. This in turn lead to teams with money drafting later being able to acquire perhaps riskier but still very good talent later in the draft.

That system is no longer the case. On the contrary, now the lower you pick in the draft the less slot money you can spend. So, it's not just about picking in the top 10 vs picking lower in the draft. It's also about having the additional slot money to acquire guys who other teams can't afford because of those restrictions. Additionally, it's also about the amount you can spend in IFA which previously could be similarly exploited by teams with lots of money. And yet another aspect is that signing a FA who has a qualifying offer not only costs you a pick but the slot money for that pick. Given that a player like Ervin Santana was giving a QO, the players you can acquire without giving up picks/slot money is quite limited.

Quite frankly, the new CBA has given incentives to tanking if you're not in contention.

 

[patg006]

Wondering how many 25-30 picks panned out better then top 5 picks over the last 20 yrs..

My guess not many. ..

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I527 using Tapatalk

Well if you had bothered to read the link instead of just assuming, you would see that there is about a 25% better chance of drafting a superior player 1-5 over 25-30.

I will take being a winning/playoff team over a 1-4 chance of getting a superior player in the draft.

As for your question, the draft years of 1989-2008 (wanted to give enough time for the drafted players to have an impact in the majors) in the years 1989, 1992, 1994, 2000 and 2002 there were players who ended up with better careers picked 25-30 than 1-5 that year.

There were also a couple years where none of the picks really worked out.

So in that time period, there was a 35-40% chance that there was no advantage to drafting in the top 5.

You think losing 100 games is an acceptable risk for that 55-60% of getting a slight advantage, I will take the 'disadvantage' of winning baseball and still having a 35-40% chance of doing no worse than those drafting 1-5.

 

[chibears55]

Well if you had bothered to read the link instead of just assuming, you would see that there is about a 25% better chance of drafting a superior player 1-5 over 25-30.

I will take being a winning/playoff team over a 1-4 chance of getting a superior player in the draft.

As for your question, the draft years of 1989-2008 (wanted to give enough time for the drafted players to have an impact in the majors) in the years 1989, 1992, 1994, 2000 and 2002 there were players who ended up with better careers picked 25-30 than 1-5 that year.

There were also a couple years where none of the picks really worked out.

So in that time period, there was a 35-40% chance that there was no advantage to drafting in the top 5.

You think losing 100 games is an acceptable risk for that 55-60% of getting a slight advantage, I will take the 'disadvantage' of winning baseball and still having a 35-40% chance of doing no worse than those drafting 1-5.

Did read the link after he replied back to me ASSCLOWN. ...

Continue your whining

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I527 using Tapatalk

 

[patg006]

Quite frankly, the new CBA has given incentives to tanking if you're not in contention.

Quite frankly it hasn't.

The total amount that teams can spend in the draft has been dramatically reduced.

We have already seen Mark Appell turn down his top 10 draft slot to return to college.

Where was the advantage in that?

In 2013 that total difference in draft spending budget from the team with the most money to the least amount of money was $9M total.

Losing 100+ games is really worth $9M???? LOL!!!!!

 

[patg006]

Did read the link after he replied back to me ASSCLOWN. ...

Continue your whining

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I527 using Tapatalk

I will take that as you have been shown that the picks 25-30 ended up being better far more often than you thought.

 

[CSF77]

Can we get a Minor league team thread made? I'm having a feeling following Iowa and Tenn will be more interesting this year.

Serious request.

 

[JP Hochbaum]

So PatDawg, who would you have on this team RIGHT NOW, that we could have got in FA? Just curious to see what this Cub team would look like.

 

[chibears55]

I will take that as you have been shown that the picks 25-30 ended up being better far more often than you thought.

No.. I dont consider 7/67 drafted players being successful during that tine frame being all that great..

Id rather take my chances on drafting 1-5 (40/84) where you have at least a half a chance to nab a successful player.

Also you have more of a chance at a superior player 25/84 30% drafting 1-5 then you would at 26-30 4/67 6% chance.

So please spare us with trying to make it seem like a team isn't as bad off drafting bottom 5 then top 5.



Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I527 using Tapatalk

 

[JosMin]

Can we get a Minor league team thread made? I'm having a feeling following Iowa and Tenn will be more interesting this year.

Serious request.

I'll talk with Rush and Zack about it. This is something I'm interested in, too. Maybe just a sticky for the teams... dunno.

 

[JP Hochbaum]

If we go back to 2012 when Theo took over the top free agents that year were:

Pujols - bad contract
Fielder - bad contract
Sabathia - good in 2012, but horrible last year, on the wrong side of 32
Reyes - Castro's position
Cj Wilson - bad contract
Beurle - bad contract

The only two guys in the top ten free agents we could have had would have been Cespedes or BEltran, and I do believe the Cubs offered for Cespedes. And Beltran was an injury risk at the time.

2013 class was very similar. There really wasn't an option to make this Cubs team a competitor. Look how risky it is these days to sign someone near 30. This aint the steroid era, things have to be built with the farm now.

 

[SilenceS]

If we go back to 2012 when Theo took over the top free agents that year were:

Pujols - bad contract
Fielder - bad contract
Sabathia - good in 2012, but horrible last year, on the wrong side of 32
Reyes - Castro's position
Cj Wilson - bad contract
Beurle - bad contract

The only two guys in the top ten free agents we could have had would have been Cespedes or BEltran, and I do believe the Cubs offered for Cespedes. And Beltran was an injury risk at the time.

2013 class was very similar. There really wasn't an option to make this Cubs team a competitor. Look how risky it is these days to sign someone near 30. This aint the steroid era, things have to be built with the farm now.

None of those guys would have came here. Ricketts had no desire to drop that kind of money. Beltran would have never came here period. He was going to a winner.

 

[theberserkfury]

I'll talk with Rush and Zack about it. This is something I'm interested in, too. Maybe just a sticky for the teams... dunno.

Bad idea... we're only supposed to be talking about the major league team here.

 

[beckdawg]

Bad idea... we're only supposed to be talking about the major league team here.

You forgot major league teams that spend money.

 

[JP Hochbaum]

None of those guys would have came here. Ricketts had no desire to drop that kind of money. Beltran would have never came here period. He was going to a winner.

And that is really the whole point. Without the money and without a good team in place rebuilding the way we are was really the only choice.

 

[theberserkfury]

You forgot major league teams that spend money.

Well, I think we're allowed to rip major league teams that don't...

 

[CSF77]

I'll talk with Rush and Zack about it. This is something I'm interested in, too. Maybe just a sticky for the teams... dunno.

Iowa starts on Thurs. I'm trying to figure where Baez and Bryant are going to be at. Bryant is not listed on the Cubs minor league site and Baez is still listed at Tenn.

 

[SilenceS]

Iowa starts on Thurs. I'm trying to figure where Baez and Bryant are going to be at. Bryant is not listed on the Cubs minor league site and Baez is still listed at Tenn.

I know for sure Baez is in AAA and Bryant is in AA. Soler is also in AA. I think Almora is in high A and Edwards is in AA.

 

[Boobaby1]

I know for sure Baez is in AAA and Bryant is in AA. Soler is also in AA. I think Almora is in high A and Edwards is in AA.

Bryant is going to face May Latos on opening day in for the Smokies.

Here is a link to the most notables in the system.

http://www.chicagonow.com/cubs-den/2014/03/breaking-down-the-2014-cubs-minor-league-rosters/

 

[patg006]

So please spare us with trying to make it seem like a team isn't as bad off drafting bottom 5 then top 5.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I527 using Tapatalk

Please explain then how the Cardinals, who have drafted higher than 18 only twice since 1998, have outdrafted the Cubs, the Pirates and most every other team in the league?

You do realize that drafting in the bottom 5 is a good thing don't you?

It means you actually have a good team.

Sadly you are dumb enough to believe that having a bad team and drafting high is somehow an improvement over have a really good team and drafting low.

That Cub fans would rather have top 100 prospects than a winning baseball team pretty sums up why they are considered the dumbest in all of sports.

 

[chibears55]

Please explain then how the Cardinals, who have drafted higher than 18 only twice since 1998, have outdrafted the Cubs, the Pirates and most every other team in the league? /QUOTE]

Probably because they had a better scouting system, ETC. in place then Cubs , Pirates ETC.

You do realize that drafting in the bottom 5 is a good thing don't you?
It means you actually have a good team. /QUOTE]

You do realize that wasn't the topic of discussion

Sadly you are dumb enough to believe that having a bad team and drafting high is somehow an improvement over have a really good team and drafting low.

Sadly your such an ASSCLOWN and too dumb to remember that the discussion was you stating there not nuch difference in drafting top 5 from bottom 5.. THAT IT.. but way to change direction when proven wrong.

That Cub fans would rather have top 100 prospects than a winning baseball team pretty sums up why they are considered the dumbest in all of sports.

I guess your the King DumbAss then if you truly are a Cubs Fan...




Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I527 using Tapatalk