Author Topic: 2012 Draft  (Read 22195 times)

CurtOne

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 24360
Re: 2012 Draft
« Reply #30 on: May 09, 2012, 12:18:03 pm »
The original question from the Squirt was whether it would be McLeod or Wilkin, Athwart.

davep

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14627
Re: 2012 Draft
« Reply #31 on: May 09, 2012, 12:33:09 pm »
Every boss has veto power.  Few use it on a regular basis.

craig

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10681
Re: 2012 Draft
« Reply #32 on: May 09, 2012, 12:45:01 pm »
The number of players under consideration for the 6th pick will not be huge.  At 43 and 56, there is a huge number of players who might be under consideration there.  But to be one of the top 6, there can't be all that many.  So I'd think that if Wilkin and McLeod have narrowed that to 10-15, Hoyer and/or Theo really could go and watch some of them themselves.  And thoroughly pore over every bit of input on those guys the other scouts contribute.  So it wouldn't surprise me if they really were players in the discussion. 

By the time we get to our 2nd round picks and later, I'd be surprised if they knew enough about the choices to make any kind of meaningful contribution.  Theo is a pretty smooth talker; he might be effective at making phone calls to guys to say we're interested in you with our next pick; we're committed to player development and there will be tons of opportunities in our organization; but if you picked in the 4th round, are you going to be signable for 4th round money, or should we not bother?  I'd think Theo would be really slick at that kind of stuff. 

Deeg

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13826
Re: 2012 Draft
« Reply #33 on: May 09, 2012, 12:46:50 pm »
Every boss has veto power.  Few use it on a regular basis.

Theo should use his veto power when Wilken tries to show up for work.

JR

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12428
Re: 2012 Draft
« Reply #34 on: May 09, 2012, 01:02:56 pm »
Theo should use his veto power when Wilken tries to show up for work.

I'm not Wilken's biggest fan either, but I think his record is starting to look a little better with hindsight.  Samardzija, Cashner, Jackson, and Russell are looking like pretty good players, and Steve Clevenger is starting to look like a guy who could carve out a pretty respectable major league career.  You could throw Darwin Barney in there as well if you want.  If Samardzija is for real, having that pick vindicated makes Wilken's record look quite a bit better.

If Wilken has a big say in this year's draft, hopefully at the very least McLeod keeps him from making bat**** crazy Hayden Simpson type picks or can be more persuasive on guys like Matt Weiters when Wilken wants to take a pass on a player like that.
« Last Edit: May 09, 2012, 01:08:21 pm by JR »

JR

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12428
Re: 2012 Draft
« Reply #35 on: May 09, 2012, 01:16:38 pm »
That being said, mentioning the awful Hayden Simpson pick made me want to take a look back at how the 2010 draft class is doing now.  Aside from Matt Szczur, who still has a ways to go himself, how is this class looking two years later?

Reggie Golden still seems iffy.  Ben Wells isn't setting the world on fire in Low-A.  Dallas Beeler is doing OK in Double-A, but he's looking more like a #3-#4 starter or 7th inning reliever type than an impact pitcher.  Kevin Rhoderick has some setup reliever potential.   

http://www.baseball-reference.com/draft/?query_type=franch_year&team_ID=CHC&year_ID=2010&draft_type=junreg&

Not a whole lot of impact talent emerging from this class it looks like, but it's still early.

StrikeZone

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4025
Re: 2012 Draft
« Reply #36 on: May 09, 2012, 04:17:39 pm »
I think that the recent drafts, with the exception of last year's, the Cubs have ended up with players that project to be low-ceiling / high floor guys.

There's been an awful lot of organizational players, utility men and guys that look like they'll end up as middle relievers.

Middle-of-the-order bats and #1 or #2 starters just haven't been taken or didn't pan out and that's left them very little in the way of quality in the upper minors.

Thanks to last year's "new philosophy" draft, they do have a few interesting players but they're several years from the Majors.

CurtOne

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 24360
Re: 2012 Draft
« Reply #37 on: May 09, 2012, 04:30:30 pm »
"high floor"  LOL  Right up there with Mondaled.

davep

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14627
Re: 2012 Draft
« Reply #38 on: May 09, 2012, 04:46:33 pm »
One large problem with the previous administration's drafts was that, until ricketts bought the team, they never had the budget to draft 4 or 5 first round talents and pay them first round money, as Boston and some other teams did.  If you take Vogelbach, Maples and Dunston out of last year's draft, it looks pretty much like previous drafts.

And since Epstein no longer will be able to use the same draft strategy that he used so successfully in Boston, it will be interesting to see if he can come up with an alternative strategy for success.

CurtOne

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 24360
Re: 2012 Draft
« Reply #39 on: May 09, 2012, 05:01:22 pm »
Why can't he?  All of the teams have the same restrictions.  Kids will have to take less if they want to turn pro.  I think it will be that simple, and if the Cubs are offering as much $$ as anyone else, we have a good shot.  The only reason for a kid to turn down the money is hoping that the rules change before they graduate from college.

davep

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14627
Re: 2012 Draft
« Reply #40 on: May 09, 2012, 05:31:53 pm »
We should have an equal shot.  My point was that previously, Epstein's teams did NOT have an equal shot.  They had a much better shot.  That is an advantage that he will not have under the new labor agreement.

Ray

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2094
Re: 2012 Draft
« Reply #41 on: May 09, 2012, 05:35:19 pm »
We should have an equal shot.  My point was that previously, Epstein's teams did NOT have an equal shot.  They had a much better shot.  That is an advantage that he will not have under the new labor agreement.

Woulda been really nice to have had a couple of drafts to restock the farm before that happened...my guess is the concepcion signing doesn't happen without new draft rules, or at least at that price if there were future alternatives to spend the money on...
« Last Edit: May 09, 2012, 05:37:15 pm by Ray »

Jes Beard

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17183
Re: 2012 Draft
« Reply #42 on: May 10, 2012, 10:46:46 am »
The number of players under consideration for the 6th pick will not be huge.  At 43 and 56, there is a huge number of players who might be under consideration there.  But to be one of the top 6, there can't be all that many.  So I'd think that if Wilkin and McLeod have narrowed that to 10-15, Hoyer and/or Theo really could go and watch some of them themselves.  And thoroughly pore over every bit of input on those guys the other scouts contribute.  So it wouldn't surprise me if they really were players in the discussion. 

Players in the discussion, yes, but it would surprise me if someone like Theo who appears to think so highly or organizational structure were to so thoroughly eviscerate Wilkin or MacLeod as would result from flatly overriding Wilkin's picks.

I think that the recent drafts, with the exception of last year's, the Cubs have ended up with players that project to be low-ceiling / high floor guys.

There's been an awful lot of organizational players, utility men and guys that look like they'll end up as middle relievers.

That is often the approach taken, and the result achieved, with the kind of budget limitations Wilkin saw before 2011.


One large problem with the previous administration's drafts was that, until ricketts bought the team, they never had the budget to draft 4 or 5 first round talents and pay them first round money, as Boston and some other teams did.

Bingo.

craig

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10681
Re: 2012 Draft
« Reply #43 on: May 10, 2012, 11:40:30 am »
It's true that Wilkin hasn't consistently been given top-5 budget, and hasn't always been given cash to sign multiple picks to 1st-round, multimillion contracts.  He's been given that perhaps in only 3 of his Cubs draft (last year, Samardz/Huseby, and Szczur).  (Not sure if the Donaldson and Flaherty drafts had even two million-dollar guys.) 

Over his reign as Cub draft boss, Wilkin's draft moneys have been in the upper half but not in the upper quarter.  But it's not like he's been consistently forced cheap, although I think that was true in at least one draft (Jackson). 

I don't think the high-floor-instead-of-high-ceiling thing was primarily necessitated by budget.  I think the lack of high-ceiling guys is simply a function of scouting.  Chris Carpenter seemed very high-ceiling.  Brett Jackson seemed like super high ceiling (power, speed, OBP, defense; if he could hit the ball solid more consistently often, he'd be a superstar.  Totally high ceiling.)  Cashner had a very high ceiling.  Perceived with the potential to pitch with control, to throw 100 mph, to have a heavy fastball and a devastating slider, hardly a conservative-low-ceiling pick.  If Vitters was the great contact guy with 35-HR's and normal walks, he'd be a super prospect.  If Shaffer recovered mid-90's velocity, with his control and curveball, his ceiling was plenty high.  With Colvin's power, if he could hit the ball and recognize balls versus strikes, his ceiling too was plenty, plenty high.  Hendry and Wilkin seemed to think that Lemahieu was a gifted hitter who'd hit for power.  As a pure contact .300-hitter without HR's, if you suddently added on 25 HR-hits, he'd be a superstud.  Flaherty and Donaldson had ceilings to hit with serious power and for high average. 

It's not that the budget forced them to draft guys knowing they couldn't become very good, it's just that guys they drafted didn't become all that good in many cases.  More scouting than budget. 

In 2007, Tampa drafted Matt Moore and signed him for $115K.  It's not that Wilkin couldn't afford him; he spent much more than that on Ryan Acosta, Jeff Russell, Josh Donaldson, Tony Thomas, Darwin Barney, and brandon Guyer; and while he may not have spent quite as much on Casey Lambert, Ty Wright, or Marquez Smith as Moore signed for, it's not that he passed on Moore for dollars, he did so based on his scouting preferences.  (Because he had hundreds of thousands left to spend on Ryan Acosta and Russell many rounds later in that draft, so it's not like his budget was exhausted.) 

So there were lots of choices in drafts in which scouting or preference, not dollars, went for guys who ended up being low-ceiling. 

davep

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14627
Re: 2012 Draft
« Reply #44 on: May 10, 2012, 01:06:24 pm »
It's true that Wilkin hasn't consistently been given top-5 budget, and hasn't always been given cash to sign multiple picks to 1st-round, multimillion contracts.  He's been given that perhaps in only 3 of his Cubs draft (last year, Samardz/Huseby, and Szczur).  (Not sure if the Donaldson and Flaherty drafts had even two million-dollar guys.) 

Over his reign as Cub draft boss, Wilkin's draft moneys have been in the upper half but not in the upper quarter.  But it's not like he's been consistently forced cheap, although I think that was true in at least one draft (Jackson). 

I don't think the high-floor-instead-of-high-ceiling thing was primarily necessitated by budget.  I think the lack of high-ceiling guys is simply a function of scouting.  Chris Carpenter seemed very high-ceiling.  Brett Jackson seemed like super high ceiling (power, speed, OBP, defense; if he could hit the ball solid more consistently often, he'd be a superstar.  Totally high ceiling.)  Cashner had a very high ceiling.  Perceived with the potential to pitch with control, to throw 100 mph, to have a heavy fastball and a devastating slider, hardly a conservative-low-ceiling pick.  If Vitters was the great contact guy with 35-HR's and normal walks, he'd be a super prospect.  If Shaffer recovered mid-90's velocity, with his control and curveball, his ceiling was plenty high.  With Colvin's power, if he could hit the ball and recognize balls versus strikes, his ceiling too was plenty, plenty high.  Hendry and Wilkin seemed to think that Lemahieu was a gifted hitter who'd hit for power.  As a pure contact .300-hitter without HR's, if you suddently added on 25 HR-hits, he'd be a superstud.  Flaherty and Donaldson had ceilings to hit with serious power and for high average. 

It's not that the budget forced them to draft guys knowing they couldn't become very good, it's just that guys they drafted didn't become all that good in many cases.  More scouting than budget. 

In 2007, Tampa drafted Matt Moore and signed him for $115K.  It's not that Wilkin couldn't afford him; he spent much more than that on Ryan Acosta, Jeff Russell, Josh Donaldson, Tony Thomas, Darwin Barney, and brandon Guyer; and while he may not have spent quite as much on Casey Lambert, Ty Wright, or Marquez Smith as Moore signed for, it's not that he passed on Moore for dollars, he did so based on his scouting preferences.  (Because he had hundreds of thousands left to spend on Ryan Acosta and Russell many rounds later in that draft, so it's not like his budget was exhausted.) 

So there were lots of choices in drafts in which scouting or preference, not dollars, went for guys who ended up being low-ceiling. 

Craig - there are two issues here.  First, regardless of the cost of each individual player, Wilken was restricted by his OVERALL budget.  He was able to give an million to Husby and Samardzija because he DIDN'T give millions for the first, second and third picks that he didn't have that year.  They merely brought his total up to budget, rather than signing his full complement of players and THEN signing one or two more players at two million each.

Second, the Tribune seemed to have a policy, perhaps because they were going to sell the team and didn't want the commissioner's office angry at them, to keep their signings about equal to the recommended slot.  This did not seem to be the policy of Boston under Epstein and his bosses.

I don't doubt that the quality of scouting also had something to do with it.  Although I have never seen any figures on it, I would be surprised to find that the Cubs scouting budget was as high as Boston's scouting budget over that time period.