2018 Draft Thread

Discussion about the June amateur draft, college baseball, high school baseball, etc.
CaliforniaRaisin
Inner-Circle HOF
Posts: 90459
Joined: Sat Dec 27, 2003 2:20 pm
Location: Pasadena, CA
x 569
x 2799

Re: 2018 Draft Thread

Postby CaliforniaRaisin » Tue May 15, 2018 6:11 pm

I say that about thinking Vasil likely needing TJS and then Kiley tweets this:

0 x
Image

User avatar
Regular Show
All-Star
Posts: 1878
Joined: Mon May 16, 2016 10:16 am
Location: Chicago, IL
x 1510
x 532

Re: 2018 Draft Thread

Postby Regular Show » Tue May 15, 2018 10:03 pm

CaliforniaRaisin wrote:I say that about thinking Vasil likely needing TJS and then Kiley tweets this:



Yeah, I mentioned a few posts ago that he saw a specialist and was cleared to pitch with no ligament damage/structural damage. I believe he's fine healthwise.

Also, he has maybe the best mechanics of any pitcher in HS. It's a clean easy delivery and he's always on line with the plate. Seems like a good athlete who keeps up with his conditioning too. I like Mike Vasil and think he'll go in the late first round area.
0 x
"It was met with, basically, he didn't want to talk about that. He didn't want me to tell him that. I just basically said, 'Well that's why we want an electronic strike zone.'" -- Ben Zobrist

User avatar
Regular Show
All-Star
Posts: 1878
Joined: Mon May 16, 2016 10:16 am
Location: Chicago, IL
x 1510
x 532

Re: 2018 Draft Thread

Postby Regular Show » Tue May 15, 2018 10:10 pm

In regards to the mock draft on Fangraphs ... well, I don't hate the pick but I don't love it either. I won't mind it if the Cubs select Jackson Kowar, but I'd rather they go after someone with a higher ceiling/more exciting.

I've heard Kowar comped to fellow Florida pitcher Luke Weaver. We'll take that I guess?
0 x
"It was met with, basically, he didn't want to talk about that. He didn't want me to tell him that. I just basically said, 'Well that's why we want an electronic strike zone.'" -- Ben Zobrist

CaliforniaRaisin
Inner-Circle HOF
Posts: 90459
Joined: Sat Dec 27, 2003 2:20 pm
Location: Pasadena, CA
x 569
x 2799

Re: 2018 Draft Thread

Postby CaliforniaRaisin » Tue May 15, 2018 10:39 pm

Patrick Mooney: Cubs Alter Draft Strategy in Wake of Trades

The Cubs are trying to find a next generation of hitters in this year’s draft. After working the free agent system, they have four selections in the top 78 picks—and five in the top 98—plus a $7.5 million bonus pool.

"There’s going to be opportunity there,” said Jason McLeod, the senior vice president who oversees scouting and player development. "Maybe it won’t be the position players because we can’t control what everyone else is doing. But I think we’re going to be able to take some upside guys and try to replace some of the impact talent that we traded away the last couple of years.”
0 x
Image

User avatar
TomtheBombadil
5-Time All-Star
Posts: 5621
Joined: Thu Jun 18, 2015 8:35 pm
x 359
x 454

Re: 2018 Draft Thread

Postby TomtheBombadil » Tue May 15, 2018 10:48 pm

Yay. I don't really see the point of a conservative approach in this draft. The chances of getting this much money to spend again in the draft is very low given that the team is awesome, the farm's weakness is impact talent, the draft is strong early....
0 x
Spoiler: show
Image

User avatar
Regular Show
All-Star
Posts: 1878
Joined: Mon May 16, 2016 10:16 am
Location: Chicago, IL
x 1510
x 532

Re: 2018 Draft Thread

Postby Regular Show » Wed May 16, 2018 1:58 am

CaliforniaRaisin wrote:Patrick Mooney: Cubs Alter Draft Strategy in Wake of Trades

The Cubs are trying to find a next generation of hitters in this year’s draft. After working the free agent system, they have four selections in the top 78 picks—and five in the top 98—plus a $7.5 million bonus pool.

"There’s going to be opportunity there,” said Jason McLeod, the senior vice president who oversees scouting and player development. "Maybe it won’t be the position players because we can’t control what everyone else is doing. But I think we’re going to be able to take some upside guys and try to replace some of the impact talent that we traded away the last couple of years.”


Can you sum up the article for ppl who don't have a subscription? They're targeting position players for the first four picks we have or balancing it between pitching and hitting?

I wouldn't be surprised if the Cubs decided to target young position players w/ high ceilings because right now we suck at finding/developing pitching prospects selected in the MLB draft.
0 x
"It was met with, basically, he didn't want to talk about that. He didn't want me to tell him that. I just basically said, 'Well that's why we want an electronic strike zone.'" -- Ben Zobrist

User avatar
Transmogrified Tiger
Inner-Circle HOF
Posts: 55691
Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2003 4:23 pm
Location: Greater St. Louis
x 427
x 5907

Re: 2018 Draft Thread

Postby Transmogrified Tiger » Wed May 16, 2018 2:00 am

Regular Show wrote:
CaliforniaRaisin wrote:Patrick Mooney: Cubs Alter Draft Strategy in Wake of Trades

The Cubs are trying to find a next generation of hitters in this year’s draft. After working the free agent system, they have four selections in the top 78 picks—and five in the top 98—plus a $7.5 million bonus pool.

"There’s going to be opportunity there,” said Jason McLeod, the senior vice president who oversees scouting and player development. "Maybe it won’t be the position players because we can’t control what everyone else is doing. But I think we’re going to be able to take some upside guys and try to replace some of the impact talent that we traded away the last couple of years.”


Can you sum up the article for ppl who don't have a subscription? They're targeting position players for the first four picks we have or balancing it between pitching and hitting?

I wouldn't be surprised if the Cubs decided to target young position players w/ high ceilings because right now we suck at finding/developing pitching prospects selected in the MLB draft.


The article is at Baseball America and does not require a subscription.
0 x

User avatar
Regular Show
All-Star
Posts: 1878
Joined: Mon May 16, 2016 10:16 am
Location: Chicago, IL
x 1510
x 532

Re: 2018 Draft Thread

Postby Regular Show » Wed May 16, 2018 2:46 am

I believe there are a limited # of free articles you can read each month because every time I click on the link it says I need to sign in.

I was able to read it on my smartphone. So it seems like McLeod is admitting there was a mandate to target pitching in last year's draft (which we can all see). I don't like that approach and believe in a BPA (best player available) philosophy for most of the draft. I agree on taking advanced hitting prospects at the top of the draft.

I don't know exactly what the Cubs will do in this upcoming draft, but I hope they target the right hitting prospects this time. Please no more Jacob Hannemanns and D.J. Wilsons...
0 x
"It was met with, basically, he didn't want to talk about that. He didn't want me to tell him that. I just basically said, 'Well that's why we want an electronic strike zone.'" -- Ben Zobrist

Hrubes20
Starter
Posts: 532
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2011 9:09 pm
x 9
x 53

Re: 2018 Draft Thread

Postby Hrubes20 » Wed May 16, 2018 4:36 pm

It's behind the paywall for me as well. Actually, EVERYTHING is now behind a paywall over at BA. Their top 500 (or 200 or whatever it first was) has been free content for as long as I've been actively following the draft. I can't access it anymore without a subscription.
0 x

davell
Hall of Fame
Posts: 21374
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2005 11:55 pm
x 1804
x 2289

Re: 2018 Draft Thread

Postby davell » Wed May 16, 2018 5:11 pm

Hrubes20 wrote:It's behind the paywall for me as well. Actually, EVERYTHING is now behind a paywall over at BA. Their top 500 (or 200 or whatever it first was) has been free content for as long as I've been actively following the draft. I can't access it anymore without a subscription.


It WAS available at first. Now it's not. I can currently access some articles they're posting(saw the Glaser article today) and others I can't. Last week they were asking me to sign in on EVERYTHING. So, I was nothing. It seems like it there's a limitation on articles you can read per month or something, it's pretty random. I have no idea what to think when I click on something there, at this stage.
0 x
Additional rule: you have to have one or the other.The only exception is you have an amazing board name. davell, I'm looking at you; put up a [expletive] avatar or something if your name only sounds like somebody tried say Dave as they lapsed into a coma.

davell
Hall of Fame
Posts: 21374
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2005 11:55 pm
x 1804
x 2289

Re: 2018 Draft Thread

Postby davell » Wed May 16, 2018 5:14 pm

Question about Kumar Rocker. Seems like a month ago he was projected to go in the top ten. In your latest mock, you have him going in the supplemental rounds. Did something happen with him that I missed to drop his stock?
Kiley McDaniel
1:10 I mean we literally spelled it out in the mock. He had a bad last start, he wants a lot of money, so once he slides past 15 or so, it's either overpay in the 30's (for top 15 money) or go to school.

And there's finality on what Rocker's situation is.
0 x
Additional rule: you have to have one or the other.The only exception is you have an amazing board name. davell, I'm looking at you; put up a [expletive] avatar or something if your name only sounds like somebody tried say Dave as they lapsed into a coma.

User avatar
TomtheBombadil
5-Time All-Star
Posts: 5621
Joined: Thu Jun 18, 2015 8:35 pm
x 359
x 454

Re: 2018 Draft Thread

Postby TomtheBombadil » Wed May 16, 2018 6:18 pm

davell wrote:Question about Kumar Rocker. Seems like a month ago he was projected to go in the top ten. In your latest mock, you have him going in the supplemental rounds. Did something happen with him that I missed to drop his stock?
Kiley McDaniel
1:10 I mean we literally spelled it out in the mock. He had a bad last start, he wants a lot of money, so once he slides past 15 or so, it's either overpay in the 30's (for top 15 money) or go to school.

And there's finality on what Rocker's situation is.


Even if you don’t buy into Rocker, considering how long he’s been on radars this is extremely reactionary. I doubt good FOs think like this and the start didn’t change much of anything. He’s been rumored all over the place all spring (including that mock) because in general there’s a huge emphasis on signability though specifically every year there’s orgs that zag.

I still think he takes $3-4 million fromthe right/lucky org in the back half of the first.
0 x
Spoiler: show
Image

davell
Hall of Fame
Posts: 21374
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2005 11:55 pm
x 1804
x 2289

Re: 2018 Draft Thread

Postby davell » Wed May 16, 2018 8:48 pm

TomtheBombadil wrote:
davell wrote:Question about Kumar Rocker. Seems like a month ago he was projected to go in the top ten. In your latest mock, you have him going in the supplemental rounds. Did something happen with him that I missed to drop his stock?
Kiley McDaniel
1:10 I mean we literally spelled it out in the mock. He had a bad last start, he wants a lot of money, so once he slides past 15 or so, it's either overpay in the 30's (for top 15 money) or go to school.

And there's finality on what Rocker's situation is.


Even if you don’t buy into Rocker, considering how long he’s been on radars this is extremely reactionary. I doubt good FOs think like this and the start didn’t change much of anything. He’s been rumored all over the place all spring (including that mock) because in general there’s a huge emphasis on signability though specifically every year there’s orgs that zag.

I still think he takes $3-4 million fromthe right/lucky org in the back half of the first.


If it's 15th pick money, it's around 3.7 mill. So, somewhere in the 3.5-4 mill area seems to be his price tag. Teams inside the top 10 may not think he's the BPA in that range. They may be trying to find an underslot, that saves them more too possibly.

Teams in the 11-15 range could see things the same way, I guess. Personally, that's where he probably SHOULD go, in my mind. But, there's depth here, and teams could easily be swayed against him at that spot. One start shouldn't have an effect. Wouldn't for me. But, if you've got a few guys you feel basically the same about, then I see that as a usable separator, even if it wouldn't be mine.

However, you drop past 15 and he becomes a guy you're having to overslot. Most teams(us included) haven't taken guys in the 1st, that you over slot on. Not sure why, but maybe teams prefer keeping "above water" on their monetary outlay for the first few rounds. Don't want to go under slot for a few rounds afterwards.

Anyway, I don't see us taking a guy that's a mill over the slot value, in the first. I have a scenario of how we COULD and it appeals to me actually. But, I just don't see the TO breaking from the norm for them. Which means slot, plus college guys mainly in the 1st 2 Rounds anyway.

I think KC, with 2 comp picks at 33 and 34, and the drafts overall highest budget, is where Rucker and one more high dollar HS arm, maybe Hankins, both wind up.
0 x
Additional rule: you have to have one or the other.The only exception is you have an amazing board name. davell, I'm looking at you; put up a [expletive] avatar or something if your name only sounds like somebody tried say Dave as they lapsed into a coma.

User avatar
TomtheBombadil
5-Time All-Star
Posts: 5621
Joined: Thu Jun 18, 2015 8:35 pm
x 359
x 454

Re: 2018 Draft Thread

Postby TomtheBombadil » Wed May 16, 2018 11:05 pm

davell wrote:However, you drop past 15 and he becomes a guy you're having to overslot. Most teams(us included) haven't taken guys in the 1st, that you over slot on. Not sure why, but maybe teams prefer keeping "above water" on their monetary outlay for the first few rounds. Don't want to go under slot for a few rounds afterwards.


The Cubs were the first team to go overslot under these rules for a first way back in 2012, a year they took multiple preps early anyway. Bryant's signing bonus only got topped last year, though he did sign for slot. They were in a relatively similar situation then looking for bats in 2012 with a HS bat heavy first round (6 of the first 12 picks, 12 of the first 31). This year it's a HS pitching heavy back of the first, where they're far and away most likely to get a meaningful ML ceiling and talent. Even when this FO was loading up Boston's farm it was mostly a few IFAs and hitting on first round picks.

I think the Cubs have gone underslot with Happ, Schwarber, and Little because those guys made sense as picks even before money got involved. Happ was a three year bat with a track record of hitting with wood bats in the CCL. Schwarber hit 40 HRs in 697 college ABs with a .341/.437 slash as a catcher. Those two were available at a time when the objective was to get college bats that would move fast through the system and hit with power in the big leagues, which at the time was dominated by pitching and weak offenses. Little was a shot at getting a Paco Rodriguez or Brandon Finnegan, a power lefty that moved extremely fast, on a team that could use one. They've gone the other way in the draft and spent on a first if they have to.

I think Plan A is an elite prep player, bat or arm from a very tiny pool of players, then the cheaper Cannings and Kowars of the college ranks to fill out the org with an Underwood and Blackburn maybe even sneaking in. Plan AB is a college bat with starter tools, a Jenista/Pompey/Hannah. I definitely don't see them loading up on college pitching right away at 24.
0 x
Spoiler: show
Image

davell
Hall of Fame
Posts: 21374
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2005 11:55 pm
x 1804
x 2289

Re: 2018 Draft Thread

Postby davell » Thu May 17, 2018 1:08 am

In order, for our 1st pick, I'd prefer.....

1. College Bat
2. High School Bat
3. College Pitcher
4. High School Pitcher

After that, I'd prefer the opposite, in the 2nd and comp picks.

In fact, it'd be great, if we had one of each, after our 1st, 2nd, and 2 comp picks.
0 x
Additional rule: you have to have one or the other.The only exception is you have an amazing board name. davell, I'm looking at you; put up a [expletive] avatar or something if your name only sounds like somebody tried say Dave as they lapsed into a coma.

User avatar
Regular Show
All-Star
Posts: 1878
Joined: Mon May 16, 2016 10:16 am
Location: Chicago, IL
x 1510
x 532

Re: 2018 Draft Thread

Postby Regular Show » Thu May 17, 2018 4:53 am

davell wrote:In order, for our 1st pick, I'd prefer.....

1. College Bat
2. High School Bat
3. College Pitcher
4. High School Pitcher

After that, I'd prefer the opposite, in the 2nd and comp picks.

In fact, it'd be great, if we had one of each, after our 1st, 2nd, and 2 comp picks.


So at our pick (#24) I just don't think there will be a college bat that's better than the other prospects available at that point. India is too high now, and I don't like Eierman or Hoerner that much. Larnach will probably be selected before their pick too.

I think the clear strength of this draft is pitching so you have to take advantage of that. I want them to target a good high school bat as well, but get away from taking the great athlete/raw baseball skills type player.
0 x
"It was met with, basically, he didn't want to talk about that. He didn't want me to tell him that. I just basically said, 'Well that's why we want an electronic strike zone.'" -- Ben Zobrist

davell
Hall of Fame
Posts: 21374
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2005 11:55 pm
x 1804
x 2289

Re: 2018 Draft Thread

Postby davell » Thu May 17, 2018 5:08 am

Regular Show wrote:
davell wrote:In order, for our 1st pick, I'd prefer.....

1. College Bat
2. High School Bat
3. College Pitcher
4. High School Pitcher

After that, I'd prefer the opposite, in the 2nd and comp picks.

In fact, it'd be great, if we had one of each, after our 1st, 2nd, and 2 comp picks.


So at our pick (#24) I just don't think there will be a college bat that's better than the other prospects available at that point. India is too high now, and I don't like Eierman or Hoerner that much. Larnach will probably be selected before their pick too.

I think the clear strength of this draft is pitching so you have to take advantage of that. I want them to target a good high school bat as well, but get away from taking the great athlete/raw baseball skills type player.


Well yeah, I'm not taking a guy just to mark off my list. That IS my preference, no matter where we pick in ANY draft. In this one, I hate saying pitching looks to be where the strength is, where we're at, but it likely is.....

But, if any of Scott, Turang, or Larnach are available at 24, I'm taking them. And I'm not opposed to taking Walker, Hannah, or Groshans either. Although I'd want a discount on Walker or Hanna, to throw at a pitcher next round.
0 x
Additional rule: you have to have one or the other.The only exception is you have an amazing board name. davell, I'm looking at you; put up a [expletive] avatar or something if your name only sounds like somebody tried say Dave as they lapsed into a coma.

User avatar
Regular Show
All-Star
Posts: 1878
Joined: Mon May 16, 2016 10:16 am
Location: Chicago, IL
x 1510
x 532

Re: 2018 Draft Thread

Postby Regular Show » Thu May 17, 2018 5:26 am

davell wrote:
Regular Show wrote:
davell wrote:In order, for our 1st pick, I'd prefer.....

1. College Bat
2. High School Bat
3. College Pitcher
4. High School Pitcher

After that, I'd prefer the opposite, in the 2nd and comp picks.

In fact, it'd be great, if we had one of each, after our 1st, 2nd, and 2 comp picks.


So at our pick (#24) I just don't think there will be a college bat that's better than the other prospects available at that point. India is too high now, and I don't like Eierman or Hoerner that much. Larnach will probably be selected before their pick too.

I think the clear strength of this draft is pitching so you have to take advantage of that. I want them to target a good high school bat as well, but get away from taking the great athlete/raw baseball skills type player.


Well yeah, I'm not taking a guy just to mark off my list. That IS my preference, no matter where we pick in ANY draft. In this one, I hate saying pitching looks to be where the strength is, where we're at, but it likely is.....

But, if any of Scott, Turang, or Larnach are available at 24, I'm taking them. And I'm not opposed to taking Walker, Hannah, or Groshans either. Although I'd want a discount on Walker or Hanna, to throw at a pitcher next round.


If we're going after a hitter I want Jordan Groshans. I really like him and I've watched a lot of video of him now. I've read some comps comparing him to Carter Kieboom. He's a prospect with no standout tool but no glaring weakness with the potential to get stronger and hit 20+ HRs down the road. That's who I want, but I know there are pitching prospects with higher ceilings who will probably be available.

Larnach is my favorite college hitter that might be available when the Cubs pick in the 1st round.
0 x
"It was met with, basically, he didn't want to talk about that. He didn't want me to tell him that. I just basically said, 'Well that's why we want an electronic strike zone.'" -- Ben Zobrist

User avatar
Regular Show
All-Star
Posts: 1878
Joined: Mon May 16, 2016 10:16 am
Location: Chicago, IL
x 1510
x 532

Re: 2018 Draft Thread

Postby Regular Show » Thu May 17, 2018 7:35 am



This article is similar to the one posted in BaseballAmerica.

'We absolutely did try to force the pitching, in terms of going heavy with taking a lot of arms,' McLeod said. 'I don’t think that it’ll be as much of an internal mandate for us to really go out and just keep getting volume, volume. Of course, we’re going to try to hit on pitching again. But ideally, we’d feel good about taking a couple of position players. We’re going to try to hone in on a couple of guys that we’ve been spending time with this spring.'


I don't do Hot Takes, but here is one I guess: Why the Cubs are targeting Hitting Prospects in this year's draft?

Well, it's because the Cubs organization sucks at drafting and developing pitchers right now. Their philosophy of acquiring arms through FA and in trades is working fine so far. We can argue about the results and needing more time to evaluate these drafts under McLeod, but I think frankly they've failed at drafting pitching prospects. Sure, some of them have reached the big leagues like Paul Blackburn and Pierce Johnson, but we haven't developed an impact pitcher from the draft. This is a failure on the part of the scouting department/player development side IMO.
0 x
"It was met with, basically, he didn't want to talk about that. He didn't want me to tell him that. I just basically said, 'Well that's why we want an electronic strike zone.'" -- Ben Zobrist

CaliforniaRaisin
Inner-Circle HOF
Posts: 90459
Joined: Sat Dec 27, 2003 2:20 pm
Location: Pasadena, CA
x 569
x 2799

Re: 2018 Draft Thread

Postby CaliforniaRaisin » Thu May 17, 2018 12:04 pm

davell wrote:
Regular Show wrote:
davell wrote:In order, for our 1st pick, I'd prefer.....

1. College Bat
2. High School Bat
3. College Pitcher
4. High School Pitcher

After that, I'd prefer the opposite, in the 2nd and comp picks.

In fact, it'd be great, if we had one of each, after our 1st, 2nd, and 2 comp picks.


So at our pick (#24) I just don't think there will be a college bat that's better than the other prospects available at that point. India is too high now, and I don't like Eierman or Hoerner that much. Larnach will probably be selected before their pick too.

I think the clear strength of this draft is pitching so you have to take advantage of that. I want them to target a good high school bat as well, but get away from taking the great athlete/raw baseball skills type player.


Well yeah, I'm not taking a guy just to mark off my list. That IS my preference, no matter where we pick in ANY draft. In this one, I hate saying pitching looks to be where the strength is, where we're at, but it likely is.....

But, if any of Scott, Turang, or Larnach are available at 24, I'm taking them. And I'm not opposed to taking Walker, Hannah, or Groshans either. Although I'd want a discount on Walker or Hanna, to throw at a pitcher next round.

I’d take Casas at 24 too, if he’s available.
0 x
Image

User avatar
TomtheBombadil
5-Time All-Star
Posts: 5621
Joined: Thu Jun 18, 2015 8:35 pm
x 359
x 454

Re: 2018 Draft Thread

Postby TomtheBombadil » Thu May 17, 2018 12:11 pm

Two hot takes:

- I think the Cubs’ pitching development issues are mostly that they have not prioritized pitching like they have hitting. They only just used a first on one for the first time last year and have yet to pay big for an IFA arm (Tdeng is their high IIRC).

- All this talk about next generation of hitters this year but secretly it’s been going on since they spent close to $6+ million on a handful IFA bats in 2015.
0 x
Spoiler: show
Image

Bertz
Starter
Posts: 701
Joined: Thu Oct 19, 2017 2:59 pm
x 286
x 350

Re: 2018 Draft Thread

Postby Bertz » Thu May 17, 2018 1:02 pm

Law has us taking Naylor in his latest mock. He's my favorite prospect in our range so that sounds pretty good to me.
0 x

CaliforniaRaisin
Inner-Circle HOF
Posts: 90459
Joined: Sat Dec 27, 2003 2:20 pm
Location: Pasadena, CA
x 569
x 2799

Re: 2018 Draft Thread

Postby CaliforniaRaisin » Thu May 17, 2018 1:29 pm

Bertz wrote:Law has us taking Naylor in his latest mock. He's my favorite prospect in our range so that sounds pretty good to me.


Oh, that’s another interesting prep hitting prospect, as long as there are no character concerns (after his brother stabbed a guy as a prank).
0 x
Image

davell
Hall of Fame
Posts: 21374
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2005 11:55 pm
x 1804
x 2289

Re: 2018 Draft Thread

Postby davell » Thu May 17, 2018 2:05 pm

I didn't list Naylor because I thought he had moved into the mid 1st. I'd like that a lot. I'm not sure about Casas. I can't see him as anything other than a 1B and I don't know if I'd want to take one that early or not.
0 x
Additional rule: you have to have one or the other.The only exception is you have an amazing board name. davell, I'm looking at you; put up a [expletive] avatar or something if your name only sounds like somebody tried say Dave as they lapsed into a coma.

davell
Hall of Fame
Posts: 21374
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2005 11:55 pm
x 1804
x 2289

Re: 2018 Draft Thread

Postby davell » Thu May 17, 2018 2:15 pm

TomtheBombadil wrote:Two hot takes:

- I think the Cubs’ pitching development issues are mostly that they have not prioritized pitching like they have hitting. They only just used a first on one for the first time last year and have yet to pay big for an IFA arm (Tdeng is their high IIRC).

- All this talk about next generation of hitters this year but secretly it’s been going on since they spent close to $6+ million on a handful IFA bats in 2015.


Gotta remember the Cuban gem we unearthed named Concepcion. Gerardo, maybe? Anyway, he got like 6 mill from us, but at least it was over 5 years. Albertos was around 1.5 too. As a general rule, pitchers just don't cost as much in IFA. Especially now that Cubans are capped too.

It seems like there's only 6-8 pitchers on the top 30 lists in IFA's each year. I know we got Tseng, Moreno, and Mejia the first time and it was a great showing for pitching. In 2015, Albertos wasn't known, so he didn't get ranked, but Marquez was. And it sounds like we've got Gallardo and Machado this year.

May not have developed them, but we've taken our shots for sure on some high end pitching, via IFA.
1 x
Additional rule: you have to have one or the other.The only exception is you have an amazing board name. davell, I'm looking at you; put up a [expletive] avatar or something if your name only sounds like somebody tried say Dave as they lapsed into a coma.


Return to “Amateur Baseball”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest