Author Topic: Cubs Draft 2020  (Read 5704 times)

Reb

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5086
Re: Cubs Draft 2020
« Reply #90 on: June 12, 2020, 01:09:14 am »

.....The Cubs have done well under Espstein after the first when the go after high school kids with potential, Cease, Steele, Davis, and  Roederer. The Cubs have done that so rarely though and it is just frustrating to see the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.  When Epstein contract is up I hope they go after the D-Backs leadership.

Because of the wipeout of so many games due to the virus, this was a tough draft to assess HS pitchers especially.

Way, way more college pitchers drafted than HS pitchers. 20 HS pitchers taken, total, so less than one per club.  Cubs took one. (55 college/JUCO pitchers).

So, if you like the Howard pick and wanted a HS pitcher early, this was not really the draft to do that. 

Obviously, Cubs like the 2nd round reliever they took-- a lot.  I'm not willing to render much of an opinion about that because none of us have any clue whether that will work out.  All I know is that he's not really the type of pitcher that the Cubs have done such a poor job drafting in recent drafts.

Also, he could be a somewhat underslot signing that will permit them to sign the 5th round HS pitcher.  Doesn't seem like the picks at 1, 3, 4 necessarily are going to be underslots.   
« Last Edit: June 12, 2020, 01:12:28 am by Reb »

guest61

  • Guest
Re: Cubs Draft 2020
« Reply #91 on: June 12, 2020, 01:54:04 am »
I like the first two picks and Little.

CUBluejays

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17344
Re: Cubs Draft 2020
« Reply #92 on: June 12, 2020, 07:53:56 am »
It's a new scouting boss, and a restructured development system.  I'm just going to hope that their analysis can see untapped potential, and can recognize correctible mechanical issues; and that they have the development process to bring the best out of some highly imperfect prospects who have some loud tools. 
*Burl and Little are big-time wild; but both are big-time fast.  Let's see if the development can get more out of them than in past from Steele or Hudson or Blackburn or Zastrysny or Stinnett or Carson Sands. 
*Moreno is a nice projectable prospect, but barely got over 90 last year.  Let's see if maturation and development turns him into a solid competitive fastball to go with other qualities; or if he's always velocity-short.

Absolutely true that once again, they didn't even try with rotation pitching.  They haven't spent on international pitchers for years, they didn't try this draft, they didn't in the Hoerner draft, and if you believe Jensen and McAvene last year are relievers not starters, then they didn't try last draft either. 

I kind of figure that if you hit on a 4th or 2nd rounder and Little or Lang end up being quality power-lefty relievers in the majors, though, I'm not going to complain "what bad picks, we should have gotten good rotation starters, but all we got from 2nd and 4th round were two excellent relievers".  But yeah, sooner or later SOMEBODY needs to start. 

Blackburn, Underwood, McNeil, and Prietto in the first 5 rounds.  Sands, Steele, Cease, all million-dollar guys.  Bryan Hudson, Darryl Wilson, million-dolllar guys or close, right?  Estrada got a million, and Velasquez was high-ceililng.  Davis and Kohl look good, plus Roederer was that year.  So they've taken some HS upside guys and signed a number of millionish guys.  They just haven't worked that well prior to Davis and maybe Kohl. 

Not sure it's philosophy, I think it's probably just case-by-case scouting and developing.  Derek Johnson just loved Stinnett.  Oops.  McLeod and somebody really loves Zastryzny, and they loved Carson Sands.  Oh well. 

It isn’t about just taking high schoolers. A lot of the guys you mentioned like Blackburn, Hudson, Prieto, etc... didn’t have a high ceiling.  They Cubs have very rarely targeted players like that and when they do they’ve had good results. They aren’t all going to hit, but even if it is a 10% rate it will beat the Cubs strategy of giving up ceiling for floor and consistently getting neither.  Burl is just a reworked package of what the Cubs have been doing for nearly a decade now with nothing to show for it.

The Cubs spent 40% of their picks on wild lefty relievers with good stuff. The Cubs have done a pretty good job of finding guys like as minor league free agents, trades, waiver claims, etc.

I like the Little pick. Burl doesn’t upset a ton. Nwago is interesting, but when you combine them together as a draft class it just doesn’t do much for me.

craig

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13097
Re: Cubs Draft 2020
« Reply #93 on: June 12, 2020, 08:50:50 am »
....A lot of the guys you mentioned like Blackburn, Hudson, Prieto, etc... didn’t have a high ceiling....

You may be right.  But I wonder if that isn't partly hindsight? 
*Hudson was a long, young guy, reported as already low-90's, viewed as being super projectible.  Randy-Johnson upside comments at the time.  Get all of his levers coordinated and optimized and he's got high-90's projection with a deadly curve.  Except with all of that length and projection, he never added one mph to his velocity, and if anything lost some in the pros.  Brailyn has added 10-15 mph; Hudson lost a couple.  Maybe good scouting would have realized in advance; and maybe good development would have helped him find an extra 6 mph, I don't know.  But I think the ceiling was at least perceived to be there, at first. 

*Steele, had good upside. and has added some velocity.  Had all the athleticism that gave him the high-ceiling to become coordinated and pitch with control; none of that ceiling was realized.  Wildman, big-league stuff but no location.

*Estrada, as HS junior throwing mid-90's, 1st-round projection, plenty high ceiling.  Well then he regressed as a senior in every way, but the high ceiling was still assumed to be in there.  But so far, nothing. 

*Little, supposedly super high-ceiling curve, and was reported to be throwing mid-90's, with projection to add more; he was projected as a plenty high-ceiling guy.  Again, that projection didn't happen, instead the real guy was a handful of mph slower, and rather than sustain velocity and get faster, his velocity is much less than the scouting reports reported. 

*Blackburn:  Slender, projectible guy, had supposedly added 5 mph and was throwing 93-94 in spring, with projection for more, to go with command and curveball.  Seemingly plenty of ceiling...  Until the real guy ended up throwing 88-90 instead of 93-94, and never added anything. 

*Underwood, already said to be throwing 99 in high school.  I think there was perceived to be plenty of ceiling.  Obviously not as fast as a pro, and never gained consistency or command. 

*Trevor Clifton, another guy with big-ceiling reports, high 90's in HS. 

You may be right, maybe they never had ceiling.  But it seems to me this is perhaps either a hindsight thing?  You get some projectible guys, and some explode, some it never happens.  Roger Clemens added 10-15 mph after his draft summer.  Angel Guzman, Carlos Zambrano, Juan Cruz, those guys added tons of velocity after their early pro years.  Brailyn, high 80's has touched 93, now he touches 100.  We've had no shortage of high-80's touches 93-94, but few have gone Brailyn. 

Not sure how much of that is:  1) luck . 2) scouting and projection, and 3) development?  Maybe if Blackburn and Hudson had been in driveline, analytics would have figured things out and they'd have added 5 mph?  But the Cubs just didn't have the analytics or development system to help them?  Or the good teachers who could persuade them to make the needed adjustments and the ability to explain exactly what needed to be done and how?  Or maybe it was largely the scouting?  Maybe smarter scouting can say "he's 90-93 now, and his breaking ball is erratic; but look at XYZ in his delivery.  If he strengthens these muscles, does this kind of throwing to strengthen his arm, adjusts his arm slot in such a way, adjusts his stride and weight-transfer in ways XYZ, and if we can get him in pitch lab quantifying each throw so he can get locked into doing it right, he's got an extra 6 mph waiting to be untapped, and with better control, and much better spin on pitches X and Y?  And maybe smarter scouting can look at Blackburn and say, "guys, I know he's young, but his delivery is already as efficient as it can get.  There's nothing more to get out of it.  Hudson may be tall, but there aren't another 7 mph untapped; there's no Randy Johnson in there, his shoulder is already too tight, and as he matures physically it's going to get worse, not better...." 

Beats me. 

Playtwo

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8787
Agree Agree x 1 Funny Funny x 1 View List

CUBluejays

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17344
Re: Cubs Draft 2020
« Reply #95 on: June 12, 2020, 09:15:42 am »
Hudson was a sinker guy with a curve. 10 years ago he’s probably a stud, but there pitching/hitting changed.  Guys adding velocity can happen, but is random. Somebody like Marquez did and Hudson didn’t.

A lot of the guys you are mentioning like Clifton, Franklin are later round picks that didn’t require a huge bonus. You can’t just take high upside guys, but the Cubs don’t do it enough. Every draft should have a few.

Here’s another comp for Burl. Jacob Lindgren. He was the best reliever in college, a lefty with 2 plus pitches and questionable command and he was going to be quick to the majors. He was taken by the Yankees at 2.14 in 2014. Reached the majors for 7 IP in 2015 and because of injuries that is the entirety of his major league career so far.

craig

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13097
Re: Cubs Draft 2020
« Reply #96 on: June 12, 2020, 09:51:12 am »
...Burl is just a reworked package of what the Cubs have been doing for nearly a decade now with nothing to show for it.

The Cubs spent 40% of their picks on wild lefty relievers with good stuff. The Cubs have done a pretty good job of finding guys like as minor league free agents, trades, waiver claims, etc.

I like the Little pick. Burl doesn’t upset a ton. Nwago is interesting, but when you combine them together as a draft class it just doesn’t do much for me.

You're likely to be correct.  Not a lot of 2nd-3rd-4th rounders turn into much; I assume with little spring scouting it's harder yet; and with Kantrovitz being new and largely working with inherited scouts from a bad scouting system, the odds aren't great. 

But I'm not sure I quite get the Burl as "reworked package" concept? 

What I see as common:  he's a flawed prospect who will need to both improve significantly relative to his flaws, and who will need to have his assets outweigh his flaws.  That is true with probably any 2nd round pick or later, nobody is perfect, nobody is ready, and anybody taken after 50 is going to need to get better in some way, probably ways plural. 

Keegan Thompson: add some velocity, hope command and pitchability makes good velocity unnecessary.  Abbott: slider needs to be so good that he doesn't need average velocity, and probably also needs to add some velo.  Brennen Davis:  needs to mature physically and add strength, but also needs to almost completely restructure his swing.  McAvene: need to sustain the velocity, and fix his command, or else have his stuff be so electric that even with sub-average command he's still good. 

Everybody needs to fix something or add something, often both.  In that regard, sure Burl and Little fall within that umbrella. 

Difference:  Where I see Burl being a somewhat different package is that I don't think he needs to add anything; it's strictly about "fixing" with him.  The stuff is obviously already there.  That was NOT true with Keegan or Zastryzny or Paul Richan.  So it's a different deal.  Not sure it's any easier.  "Pitch lab" is all the buzz, of course; but it's not totally new, and "pitch lab" didn't fix Edwards or Maples or Underwood (at least, not yet....).  So maybe "analytics" and "development" will fix it; but kinda doubtful. 

Little, maybe kinda similar?  100-mph velocity is a pretty good place to start, you don't need to add more there.  Adjust the arm slot, play with the grip, get some different spin, and hopefully the location gets more consistent. 

The hitter, too; he doesn't need to mature into power.  Power, bat-speed, exit-velo, those are already present.  But probably a whole lot of "fixing" to his swing to enable those attributes to come out more often.  I'm still a skeptic that you can "hitting Lab" or "develop" a guy into being able to hit. 

But in a sense it seems to me to be a pretty audacious, perhaps almost arrogant, confidence that your analytics and labs can "fix" these guys, guys with big talents but big flaws.  Should be kind of if they can find some success.

Tangent note:  It may also be that the "great stuff" and awesome velocity that Burl and Little have, that those are kinda fraudulent?  Throwing for the speed-gun is one thing; throwing to get a batter out is different.  In the video, Burl's delivery seems totally wild and all-out.  Wouldn't surprise me if they didn't work with him to refine his delivery; but that a smoother, more controlled delivery that could throw strikes more consistently might be 4 mph slower, or whatever.   As always "maxing at" and "touching" is always different from normal pitching velocity. 

Derek Johnson had everybody throw within a variety of velocity ranges; them instructed them to *not* throw in their highest range, instead wanting them to throw within a range where they could throw with control and consistency, and without arm strain.  Obviously the high-end listings for Burl and Little are not descriptive of their control+consistency ranges. 

CUBluejays

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17344
Re: Cubs Draft 2020
« Reply #97 on: June 12, 2020, 09:57:15 am »
My issue with the Cubs draft for a long time is they typically sacrifice ceiling for a better floor.  The previous way they did was they took pitch-ability college starters, see almost all of their pitching picks when Theo was been in charge of this.  Burl is a strict reliever, with good stuff that it supposed to be close to the majors.  It is just a different way of sacrificing ceiling for what is thought to be a better floor.


Bennett

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7414
Re: Cubs Draft 2020
« Reply #98 on: June 12, 2020, 09:57:36 am »

CUBluejays

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17344
Re: Cubs Draft 2020
« Reply #99 on: June 12, 2020, 11:02:53 am »
Cubs top 10 picks under Theo
2019- 3 HS, 5 college pitchers
2018- 3 HS, 3 college pitchers
2017- 2 HS, 7 college pitchers
2016- 7 college pitchers
2015- 2 HS, 5 college pitchers
2014- 3 HS, 5 college pitchers,
2013-1 HS, 6 college pitchers
2012- 5 HS , 4 college ptichers

35 college pitchers and only 4 have reached the majors, none higher than 2 fWAR in their career so far.

craig

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13097
Re: Cubs Draft 2020
« Reply #100 on: June 12, 2020, 12:09:35 pm »
Cubs top 10 picks under Theo

35 college pitchers and only 4 have reached the majors, none higher than 2 fWAR in their career so far.

Thanks, yeah, that's really striking and bad.  So, who are the 4 who reached? 
*Godfrey is the biggest winner of that bunch? 
*Zastryzny?
*James Norwood? 
*Who's the other guy?  Pierce Johnson!!!

Man, that's really bad, especially given how many picks they've invested. 

I wonder if that isn't a combo of trying to be a little too enlightened and being a little too dumb?  They've run the statistics:  at least 10 years ago, the stats showed that it was harder to get good hitters outside round 1 than to get good pitchers.  And that there were a lot of big-league pitchers without knockout arms who'd come out of college after round 1.  So, they thought they were being smart.  But the actual scouting and development, it's just been 35 misses. 

Will be interesting to see how the pitch-lab era, and the reemphasis on higher-velocity guys, plays out.  Last year Jensen and McAvene are both power guys, what if we hit on one or both of those? 

I still don't really see either Burl or Little as being "high floor" guys.  As Maples shows, it doesn't matter how fast you throw and how sharp your breaking ball is; if you've got no control your floor is plenty low. 

So I guess I kinda see gambling on wild, big-arm guys with such tiny sample sizes and so very little indication of any control or consistency as being plenty low-floor. 

craig

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13097
Re: Cubs Draft 2020
« Reply #101 on: June 12, 2020, 12:14:38 pm »
I'm guessing all five will sign at around slot. 

Any other guesses? 
*If not, I assume Moreno would be the more likely overslot guy? 

If Moreno does get overslot, who would you guess agreed to sub-slot in order to fund Moreno? 

CUBluejays

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17344
Re: Cubs Draft 2020
« Reply #102 on: June 12, 2020, 12:29:17 pm »
Here more depressing drafting.  After the first round here are the fWAR leaders.
Zach Godley 6
Bolte 2.5
Daniel Ponce de Leon 1.2 (who the Cubs agreed to sign, but voided his contract over a physcial)

That is the list of guys above 1 career fWAR that the Cubs have drafted under Theo.

I though 2018 and 2019 the Cubs had turned a corner in the draft under Dorey.  This is a step back to me.  The best drafts are going to manage their risk, so take a high upside guy that might flame out and get some college guys to mix in.  The Cubs outside of a very few picks have risk adverse and I think that shows in their results. 

I think Moreno would be the 5% overage, assuming the Cubs have enough money to spend that.


davep

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15849
Re: Cubs Draft 2020
« Reply #103 on: June 12, 2020, 12:31:51 pm »
I would guess that 2, 3, and 4 are candidates for underslot, and that the Cubs were quite sure when they picked the 5th pick high school guy, exactly how much they had to spend on him.  Very few top 10 picks go unsigned by any teams these days, and the Cubs have been as good or better at this than the others.

Moreno, the high school pitcher, is in the same position as the Cubs, although on the other side of the coin.  It is difficult to take a high school pitcher because so many of them end up with arm trouble.  At the same time, it is difficult to turn down half a million dollars and risk getting nothing if your arm goes out in the next three years.  It is usually in the best interest of both sides to reach an agreement that both sides can live with.
Agree Agree x 1 View List

Bluebufoon

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 125
Re: Cubs Draft 2020
« Reply #104 on: June 12, 2020, 12:48:38 pm »
The question becomes, how many undrafted fee agents can the Cubs convince to sign ?
Agree Agree x 1 View List