The Cubs and their Draft Position: Does it Matter?
by Bad Midget on Sep 4, 2010 11:39 PM CDT
Email
Print
With the Cubs way out of the race a lot of focus has been on if the Cubs are going to be able to compete next year. Part of that is a draft pick. The one benefit of a terrible season is a high draft pick. Now, a lot of people will say it doesn't matter or it doesn't make that much of a difference. Well, I wanted to see if this was true. Right now the Cubs sit with the number nine pick in the upcoming draft. The Cubs could realistically get as high as the number five pick in the draft. So for the case of this study I'd thought I'd do a comparison between the number 9 pick and number 5 pick in the draft (for the first round).
For the case of this study we probably want a big sample size, now you may ask why not just go back to when the draft started? Well, the thing is scouting and publications just weren't around back then. Scouting has completely changed. Everyone has video, they can cover more ground. So for the sake of this study will go with twenty years, starting in 2007 and going back to 1987. It just isn't that fair to judge prospects when they haven't had a ton of time to get to the majors so that's why I'm starting at 2007.
These are the last twenty number 9 picks in the MLB draft from 2007 to 1987:
Phillips, Mark
Brunson, Matt
Walden, Ronnie
Statistics:
# of Players that didn't make it to the majors (minimum 100 at bats and 50IP) : 7 (35%)
All-Star selections: 5, Barry Zito with 3, Geoff Jenkins with 1, and Preston Wilson with 1
Cy Youngs: 1, Barry Zito
Other Statistics (Note: this is only for the players who made it to the majors/ it's based off their carreer #s)
| 2007 to 1987 Number 9 Picks | |||
| Name | wOBA | WAR | FIP |
| Pelfrey,Mike | 4.9 | 4.21 | |
| Danks, John | 12.5 | 4.22 | |
| Jeff, Francis | 14 | 4.43 | |
| Zito, Barry | 31.3 | 4.3 | |
| Sean, Burroughs | 0.311 | 6.2 | |
| Michael, Cuddyer | 0.345 | 11 | |
| Mark, Kotsay | 0.325 | 25.2 | |
| Geoff, Jenkins | 0.354 | 28.4 | |
| Nitowski, C.J. | 1.3 | 5.08 | |
| Wilson, Preston | 0.343 | 12.1 | |
| Smith, Mark | 0.316 | -0.3 | |
| Abbott, Kyle | -0.1 | 4.65 | |
| Totals | 0.332333333 | 146.5 | .481666667 |
Now the Number five picks from 2007 to 1987:
Henderson, Ken*
Bene, William*
Statistics:
# of players who didn't make it (minimum 100 at bats/ 50IP): 11
All-Star selections: 12, Ryan Braun with three, Mark Teixera with 2, J.D. Drew with 1, Vernon Wells with 3, Jack McDowell with 3.
Cy Young: 1, Jack McDowell
Other statistics (note: this is for the guys who made it to the majors. This is also career numbers):
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
So you've seen both tables, how do they stack up? Well it's really simple:
1. Number five picks have a wOBA about 20 points higher than the number nine picks.
2. Number five picks have a WAR total of about 17 higher than the number nine picks, which may not seem like a lot, but it really is.
3. Number five picks have a FIP of about 14 points lower than the number nine picks.
As you can see the number five pick is better at everything here. They have more star power, better numbers, and overall a better career as a player. This is not to say that this ensures a good pick. As you can see the number five pick has busted more than the number nine pick. But this clearly shows that the higher the draft pick you get, the higher the chance of that player becoming a good major leaguer.
Even to extend that a bit, you can see the fifth pick class has more star players. There really is no absolute stud in the 9th draft pick class. You could say Zito, but he really isn't. While the fifth pick has a number of "stars", again I'm going by WAR, not RBI or some awful stat like that. I would consider these players to be close to stars or are ones: Braun (superstar), Teixera (superstar),Brandon Morrow, Wells, J.D. Drew, and McDowell. Now I now your going to say Morrow isn't a star but he has the highest k/9 in the whole entire league, he has an outstanding 3.65 xFIP, and is only 26 years old. You could even make the case Wieters might be one. But overall the fifth pick is just so much better than the ninth.
Now, let me make this clear, I don't want the Cubs to give up or stop trying. But I could care less. Let's see the minor leaguers out there (except Hoffnopower). Who cares if the minor leaguers are worse than the mediocre veterans (Ramierz, Nady, Soriano)? Who cares if the Cubs win 6 more games than they would have by playing the kids? It doesn't matter. No one will look back and remember this season for those meaningless September wins, they'll look back and remember this season has a total and utter failure, but with a higher draft pick they might look back and remember those loses at the end of September that helped the Cubs obtain the next future Wrigley Star.
This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of SB Nation or Al Yellon, managing editor (unless it's a FanPost posted by Al). FanPost opinions are valued expressions of opinion by passionate and knowledgeable baseball fans.
69 comments
|
3 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
If the question is
Simply, does draft position matter, then of course it does. For all the talk of finding Mike Piazza’s out there, the higher the pick, the greater likelihood that you’ll find a quality player, particularly in this day and age where scouting is much more thorough and detailed then it was before.
You are right in that, 10 years from now, few casual fans will remember the minor details to a bad, bad season. All that said, I’d hope that Quade manages to win, rather than, well, essentially a try-out. Momentum from year to year is a small factor (not all situations go the way the Padres have for the most part this year), if at all, but I do believe that having our key youngsters finish on a positive is a good thing. Furthermore, we are in the midst of a coaching search, and while the betting money is on Ryne, one of the top contenders is Quade, and getting to see his in-game managing skills is important.
There’s some other things that can be said, but let’s get to the other point that may hold some relevancy. Does it, at this early stage, seem like it’ll matter in the 2011 draft? There’s definitely a long way to go before we sort out the 2011 draft, but already, it’s being touted as being potentially one of the best in the past 2 decades. There’s a host of strong collegiate arms, solid collegiate bats, and the HS crop is, potentially, very good. The chances of getting a good talent in the first is there. I tend to think if the Cubs could get a shot at Anthony Rendon, I’d be supportive of them “trying out” guys. As good as Matt Purke is, and as intriguing as Gerritt Cole is (the early favorites for the top 3 picks next year), I don’t know if I love them enough versus the Cubs trying to finish strong, and since the chances of getting Rendon are so slim, I’d rather see how Quade manages, see how our young arms react with late season weariness, see if Castro can keep his hot streak going and challenge for the batting title.
by toonsterwu on Sep 5, 2010 12:28 AM CDT reply actions 1 recs
That's the one thing
I don’t like about Quade managing. Quade is going to try to win like he’s in a pennant race. Instead of putting Wellington Castillo out there he might put a somewhat broken down Geo Soto because he wants to make an impression. See that’s were I don’t really like handing over the job to a potential candidate. He’s going to manage like it’s the seventh game of the World Series. Instead of playing younger or worser people he’s going to want the veterans out there. Or Carlos Marmol out there because he wants to make a good impression. I don’t blame Quade at all for doing that. But I just don’t like it for the long term.
The position doesn't matter nearly as much...
…as the people in charge of evaluating the potential draftees. There are multiple “diamonds in the rough” all through the draft…in all different rounds. For example: in 1995 Kerry Wood was picked 4th and Roy Halladay was picked 17th. Hell…what round was Pujols picked in? Or Howard? Point is…the draft is, and always will be, a crap shoot. Sure, you’ll have your Harpers and your A-Rods come around every once in awhile, but, all in all, I think the number you pick from, beyond the 1st spot, is irrelevant.
Joe Girardi...2011 Chicago Cubs Manager...Book it!!
Adam Dunn..2011 Chicago Cubs First Baseman - 3 yrs/$42 mill with a club option for a 4th.
disagree with that
I don’t completely agree with Bad Midget’s notion that the end of the season should be tossed, but if you are suggesting that, after the first pick, things are irrelevant, I’d totally disagree with that. There is certainly an element of development that you want, but the better the talent that you can get, the higher the chances you’ll have on development. There are always diamonds in the rough types and late bloomers out there, but the success ratio is far less, and that holds true for even the best evaluators, such as Tim Wilken, Dan Jennings. Even within the first round, that difference still holds, and the higher the pick you can get, the higher the chances you will have. It’s about doing your best to ensure success, and in this case, getting better talent matters. For example, looking at 2011, I’m a huge fan of Danny Hultzen, but if you are suggesting that there’s no difference between Danny Hultzen (a potential mid-first) and Matt Purke (top 5 pick, perhaps even top overall), I’d tell you that I’d rather get Purke.
disagree
the higer the spot in the draft, the better chance you have to get the player(s) you feel are the diamond in the rough. the lowe you are, the less chance. its simple math
lets just say there are 1000 kids in the draft, if you draft 30th you have 971 to choose from, and so on, each time being the lesser number.
not saying it guarantees anything, but it does raise your chances.
Chronologically inept since 2060
"I could be writing this crap!" -- Crow T. Robot
Me: Q: I can run but not walk. Wherever I go, thought follows close behind. What am I?
Wrigster A: Theriot
I understand
but I’d come back with … who is there to evaluate? We’ve seen Colvin for most of the year. Baker/Hill/Nady are veterans, and all three could be gone next year for financial reasons. Hoffpauir?
About the only two guys, positionally, on the bench that you could make a case for would be Castillo and Barney. In Castillo’s case, his impact on the young pitchers that are trying to make an impression is big, so the Cubs may want to give their young arms a shot as well.
All in all, it’s one of those years and situations where I’m not sure there’s so much to try out that would really have me harking on that, and unless we can get in position for Rendon, who would be a potential fast moving impact bat, then I’d rather see the team go out and finish strong, I think.
a few comments
Yes draft position matters, but I still voted no on your poll because I don’t think next years draft position should factor into how this year is played. Yes play rookies to evaluate them to determine who you may want to target next year, but do so without trying to get a better draft position.
Most important though, play to win. Quade isn’t going to manage like he’s in the World Series. That is when you have starters throw on short rest or take other drastic measures. We won’t see that.
"There are no curses here...Games are won and lost on the baseball field" - Lou Piniella
I think I mean that Quade is going to manage like he’s playing to get something, which I don’t blame him at all for. You know why Tyler Colvin was leading off? Lou’s not that dumb to know Colvin isn’t adept a taking a walk. He was batting leadoff because it got him more ab’s. Quade has him 8th or7th sometimes.
by Bad Midget on Sep 5, 2010 9:31 AM CDT via mobile up reply actions
Quade is going to manage like the Cubs are in contention, which again I don’t blame him for. I blame Cub management.
by Bad Midget on Sep 5, 2010 9:34 AM CDT via mobile up reply actions
Quade is going to manage to win.
Any manager who doesn’t do this shouldn’t have the job.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
Exactly
I don’t blame Quade at all for playing veterans more. I blame Cub managent for putting him in the situation.
by Bad Midget on Sep 5, 2010 9:45 AM CDT via mobile up reply actions
Disagree, to a point.
At this point in the season, part of the manager’s job is to help the club evaluate players for future seasons.
Do Wellington Castillo and Darwin Barney need to play every day? No. But if they only start two or three times the rest of the way… then the manager (or the GM for not ordering the move) hasn’t done the job.
But, yes, in general the manager’s job surely is to try and win each and every game… but in a lost season, that shouldn’t come at the expense of learning about some of the younger players.
Shut up Joe Morgan.
It should also be noted that I may have the wrong Mark Smith. I looked at the MLB draft page and he was listed in the 1989 draft, but I can’t find anybody on baseball reference that fits that profile.
by Bad Midget on Sep 5, 2010 9:39 AM CDT via mobile reply actions
It doesnt matter when we have such a poor record of 1st round pick successes
Okay, just so I understand it... in your wildest fantasy, you are in hell. And you are co-running a bed and breakfast with the devil.
Really?
Brett Jackson, Vitters, Cashner are damn good picks even if you consider Vitter’s problems.
by Bad Midget on Sep 5, 2010 9:59 AM CDT via mobile up reply actions
How are they good picks?
The jury is still very much out on all of them. Cashner is the best of the bunch so far as he is the only one to make it to the bigs, but he has not shown he is a big league pitcher yet. He has shown he has the stuff, but that is only half the battle. As for Jackson and Vitters, neither have proven anything yet, so to call them good picks is based on wishful thinking as much as anything else.
I always turn to the sports section first. The sports page records people's accomplishments; the front page has nothing but man's failures.
~Earl Warren
by lookingdeadred on Sep 5, 2010 10:34 AM CDT up reply actions
Are you kidding?
Jackson, Casner, and Vitters were all in the top 100 prospects for 2010. Jackson is a potential 5 tool player who’s OPSing over .820 and has a .380 wOBA, he’s really good. Cashner was just ridiculous in the minors, he got rushed and is paying the price. Vitters still has a ton of potential. Another first round pick in Colvin is doing well. Tim Wilken is really good.
by Bad Midget on Sep 5, 2010 10:41 AM CDT via mobile up reply actions
No, are you?
Yes, they have potential, but whether they ever amount to anything in the bigs is still to be determined, and that is the only thing that matters.
I always turn to the sports section first. The sports page records people's accomplishments; the front page has nothing but man's failures.
~Earl Warren
by lookingdeadred on Sep 5, 2010 4:22 PM CDT up reply actions
Yes
but all three of them are very highly regarded and have shown somewhat a track record of success at the levels they’re at. Yes, none of them have made a great impact, but they’re all still really young and brimming with potential.
i think i have heard this story a few times
Chronologically inept since 2060
"I could be writing this crap!" -- Crow T. Robot
Me: Q: I can run but not walk. Wherever I go, thought follows close behind. What am I?
Wrigster A: Theriot
but really the scouting department is really regarded as one of the best in the majors. That’s really the only reason you can explain the Hayden Simpson pick. Tim Wilken and his guys do it different than a lot of other teams.
Remember everyone hate, and I mean hated that Tyler Colvin pick. He looked like he was going to be a bust, but now…..maybe a starter. Maybe a fourth outfielder. I’m just not sure how legit the power is
i know anything is possible with minor leaguers
and no one knows what they are until they get their chance, i was just having fun with my comment, mainly cuz as you pointed out its not a new thing.
Chronologically inept since 2060
"I could be writing this crap!" -- Crow T. Robot
Me: Q: I can run but not walk. Wherever I go, thought follows close behind. What am I?
Wrigster A: Theriot
Bobby Hill anyone?
Chronologically inept since 2060
"I could be writing this crap!" -- Crow T. Robot
Me: Q: I can run but not walk. Wherever I go, thought follows close behind. What am I?
Wrigster A: Theriot
exactly
I always turn to the sports section first. The sports page records people's accomplishments; the front page has nothing but man's failures.
~Earl Warren
by lookingdeadred on Sep 6, 2010 9:51 AM CDT up reply actions
Colvin is doing well?
If you want 20 HRS with little to nothing else, then yes he’s doing well, but he was hardly worthy of a first round pick
Okay, just so I understand it... in your wildest fantasy, you are in hell. And you are co-running a bed and breakfast with the devil.
good point
Colvin has played well enough to have earned another chance, but he is not a noteworthy 1st round pick yet.
I always turn to the sports section first. The sports page records people's accomplishments; the front page has nothing but man's failures.
~Earl Warren
by lookingdeadred on Sep 6, 2010 11:17 AM CDT up reply actions
What are you talking about?
He’s a 25 year old outfielder, in his first full year in the bigs, with a wOBA of .351 an ISO of .248 and a SLG of over .500. That’s ridiculous to say he’s been bad. He’s been really good for a kid that was said to be a bust. IF the babip come around the batting average wouldn’t look so bad. He’s also walking at about a 7% pace which is a big improvement.
Agreed
For a cost controlled player, he is very useful, can play adequate defense at each OF spot, and provides left-handed power, which is in short supply on this team. He will probably never be a high OBP player, but he has shown improvement. If we can stick him in the 7 spot for the next 5 years and get 20+ home runs, he will have been a very useful player. Also, considering the age and performance of our corner outfielders, having a strong 4th outfielder is a must.
by neifiisgreat on Sep 6, 2010 12:55 PM CDT up reply actions
At best Colvin has shown he might become a good player
nothing more
I always turn to the sports section first. The sports page records people's accomplishments; the front page has nothing but man's failures.
~Earl Warren
by lookingdeadred on Sep 11, 2010 10:53 AM CDT up reply actions
My problem with this
is (1) that I agree with Al that any manager who isn’t managing to win shouldn’t be managing at all; and (2) that you can’t take two data points, draw a line between them, and say “look, here’s a trend”. Fair enough, your figures suggest that a number 5 pick is, on average, better than a number 9; but the Cubs could “play for draft position” and end up with the number 6, 7 or 8 pick. How do those positions stack up in an analysis like this? Are they all on a line between 5 and 9, even approximately? I understand that you were doing a quick and dirty comparison rather than a full-on sabermetric analysis of career value, but while I think what you’ve done is interesting it’s not enough to base an overarching theory on.
by Limey Cub Fan Jay on Sep 5, 2010 11:37 AM CDT reply actions
Yeah, of course
But really just from the name values and the eye ball test it seems like you increase your chances of getting s star.
by Bad Midget on Sep 5, 2010 11:39 AM CDT via mobile up reply actions
Try it for the number 6 pick
I haven’t done as much work as you did – I don’t have your dedication. I only checked the WAR and the awards.
You get (from 2007 to 1987, in order, a star means they never played in the majors)
Ross Detwiler
Andrew Miller
Ricky Romero
Jeremy Sowers
Ryan Harvey*
Zack Greinke
Josh Karp*
Rocco Baldelli
Josh Girdley*
Ryan Mills*
Jeff Goetz*
Seth Greisinger
Jaime Jones*
McKay Christensen
Steve Soderstrom
Derek Jeter
John Burke
Marc Newfield
Paul Coleman*
Monty Fariss
Derek Lilliquist
That group have 12 All-Star selections (Jeter 11, Greinke), 1 Cy Young (Greinke) and a RoY (Jeter) between them. Seven of them didn’t make the majors (8 if you count Burke, who didn’t sign but was redrafted the following year). That seems consistent with the 5 pick, but this lot managed only 102.5 WAR between them, and over 90% of that is from Jeter and Greinke. Only six of them have a positive WAR at all, and apart from the Big Two, the only one who seems to have much chance of being a star is Romero (maybe). So I’d argue that the number 6 pick scopes out considerably worse than the number 9; and that in turn fatally undermines the argument that the Cubs should be trying to do anything other than to win every possible game.
by Limey Cub Fan Jay on Sep 5, 2010 12:54 PM CDT up reply actions
Yeah, I don't don't deny
But as another poster pointed out before the higher the pick the more players there are to select. It’s possible that there is no difference between the top 10. But it gives you a chance at a Ryan Braun. It gives you a chance to select the player you really want. It just opens up more avenues. But yeah you could be right in saying it doesn’t matter. This season is bad it just increases, even if it isn’t much a chance at a star. That’s what this team needs.
by Bad Midget on Sep 5, 2010 1:18 PM CDT via mobile up reply actions
There are plenty of stars who were not drafted in the first round.
Albert Pujols, for example: 13th round pick.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
That's a pretty irrelevent thing to say
Unless you are saying that you are just as likely to draft a star in the 13th round as you are in the 1st. (hint: you’re not)
No, of course you're not.
But when you’re talking about drafting 4th in the first round or 8th, does it really make that much difference? I’d say no.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
Maybe your right
but again, it increases the chances of drafting a Ryan Bruan over a Jay Bruce. It does matter, maybe not a lot, but I personally think it matters.
Again I don’t want the team to try to lose, but I won’t oppose decisions related to that.
Wasn't that what this entire article attempted to put numbers behind?
This was a pretty good post. You’re just shooting it down because you just don’t feel it makes a difference.
The fact is each passing pick yields a lower return than the previous:
In fact if you look at the graph, there’s a huge dropoff within the first 15 picks:
There's a huge drop-off between the first two picks
I accept that, in principle, drafting higher gives you a shot at (say) Ryan Braun rather than Jay Bruce, but the evidence suggests that beyond the odd “sure thing”, no-one is actually capable of identifying which player is going to be Ryan Braun from the crowd of similar-looking players who are destined to be Jay Bruce: at least not with enough certainty to make one or two positions in the draft significant over time.
by Limey Cub Fan Jay on Sep 7, 2010 4:44 AM CDT up reply actions
The chart actually proves my point.
It appears to be a crapshoot among the top 50 picks.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
Sure, it's just like a crapshoot
Only in this version of craps, the dice have one side added to them after every roll.
I’m not sure how you can look at that second graph and say that the whole thing is a crapshoot. Look at the red line: career war > 10 seems like a pretty reasonable return on a draft pick. I think you could call that a success.
The odds at the 1st pick are 50/50 that your player will have a career war >10. The odds at the 15th pick are 1-in-5. By the 25th pick, the odds have dropped to 1-in-10.
So you can call it a “crapshoot” in that, like everything in baseball and life, there is a good chance you will fail. But those odds aren’t equal for all players.
by Wreckard on Sep 7, 2010 9:27 AM CDT up reply actions 3 recs
rec'd
Chronologically inept since 2060
"I could be writing this crap!" -- Crow T. Robot
Me: Q: I can run but not walk. Wherever I go, thought follows close behind. What am I?
Wrigster A: Theriot
yes of course
but that’s ridiculous to say. Albert Pujols’s in the 13th round don’t come around these days. Scouting is wayyy different. It’s a lot better. Does it mean your going to get a great player? no. Does it mean you increase the likelihood? yes. throwing out an isolated example like that is just pointless.
I'm going to be nitpicky here:
But this clearly shows that the higher the draft pick you get, the higher the chance of that player becoming a good major leaguer.
What it really shows is that of those who make it to the bigs, the higher draft choices have a somewhat better chance. Especially since by your own comment:
As you can see the number five pick has busted more than the number nine pick.
So what is really happening is a team getting a somewhat better chance of drafting a decent player at #9, and a somewhat slimmer chance of drafting a better-then-decent player at #5.
Yeah I agree
But…the Cubs have nothing to lose playing the kids. Who cares is the Cubs have a respectable record along the way. I’m not saying don’t try, I’m saying give the kids a chance, who cares what happens. I think one main point is also there is no stud in the number 9 draft class. Not one has had a great career. You could argue 5 of those guys are superstars at the level. Yes, this doesn’t imply at all anything. I think it’s just a cool little thing to look at. Just from going through the names pre-1987 the number 5 pick is also a lot better. Your playing the odds, and withe nothing to play for why not increase your odds of getting a Braun or McDowell. Besides Sammy the only real star the Cubs have had/could have is Starlin Castro. If you look at our farm system there really is no one who projects to be a great middle of the order hitter (some say Brett Jackson) or a top of the line starter. I just want a way to increase the odds of getting a really good pick.
Castillo and Barney.
The reason they need to play is to determine if Hendry needs to toss $2M+ at bench players again next season.
Shut up Joe Morgan.
Barney, Castillo (geo soto really shouldn’t be playing if he’s hurt), Tyler Colvin isn’t even getting regular playing time, there is a lot players that you need to evaluate. So instead of spending 3 million on Xavier Nady you can save that money by playing Barney or instead of spending money on a backup catcher you can play Castillo, because you trust him. There’s a lot of different people that need to be evaluated.
And it also prevents Koyie Hill from ever stepping on to a major league field again. Koyie Hill might be one of the worst players in Cub history. The only guy I can think of worse was Nefi. But if Castillo can just have an OPS of .650 (which is bad) you’’ have an improvement. There really is no reason to be playing soto if he’s even slightly hurt. Shut him down. Soto is one of the most valuable players in the game today. His health is very important if the Cubs even want to make it to 80 wins next year.
Nice
Thanks for the information. Though not scientific, of course, it does demonstrate the general idea very well. Again, I don’t think we’re rooting for losses here, just saying that wins are not important at this point. When the season is over, I’d gladly trade a few wins from this season for a higher draft choice. So, if the Cubs lose…OK! If they win…FUN!
There’s no stress in watching the conclusion of a bad season, that’s for sure. (don’t get me wrong, though, I’d gladly choose the stress of a pennant race over this, but I can just enjoy the games no matter the outcome at this point)
Yeah that's my attitude
I look at the box score and every freaking day i see a 2 in the hit column next to Starlin Castro’s name and it makes me smile, well not really, but you get the point.
Totally
I’m enjoying just watching some of these guys relax and play the game. Castro is an exciting player. I’m very proud of the job he’s done when comparing him to Escobar with my Brewers fan friends =)
Signability
There’s a big problem with analyzing the MLB Draft in this way. Unlike the NFL and NBA drafts, the best players are not always drafted first. With MLB, some of this has to do with money demands, some of it has to do with educational commitments. There’s obviously a difference between drafting 5 and 8, but if the 5th best player is asking for #1 overall money, he will drop like a rock and might not even sign in the first place. On the flip side, the 20th best player might be willing to sign for less than recommended slot at the 5th pick.
Yes, the Cubs would benefit from having a higher draft pick. However, if they’re willing to spend, there’s a good chance one of the top players in the draft will fall into their laps, regardless of whether they’re at 5 or 8.
that holds true in every sport
Vince Young was not drafted by Houston (for example) because they figured he would demand the sun and the moon, so they went with someone else who fit their budget better.
Chronologically inept since 2060
"I could be writing this crap!" -- Crow T. Robot
Me: Q: I can run but not walk. Wherever I go, thought follows close behind. What am I?
Wrigster A: Theriot
To an extent, it does
However, Vince Young would not have gotten #1 money if he was drafted at #20.
by Outshined_One on Sep 5, 2010 9:25 PM CDT up reply actions
that's overstating the reason why Houston passed
Simply put, they had Mario as the top player in the draft that year and not the entire organization was sold on Vince Young developing into a NFL starting QB. While I thought Vince Young could be a fit in Kubiak’s system (mobile, able to have solid accuracy on the short-intermediate routes), there were a lot of folks that questioned Vince Young’s NFL potential as a QB that year due to the single-read spread system he played in, and his questionable downfield accuracy. Add in that they wanted to give David Carr one more try (it’s easy to forget now how highly touted David Carr was coming out Fresno State, and how exciting his potential was … the Texans really ruined him by not getting him protection), and a lot of factors played into why Vince Young, by all accounts from folks in that area, wasn’t even in the Texans final decision-making thought process for that pick.
actually no it is not
his agent was in my friends cab here (in Austin, Texas) a few years ago, and he said that was the reason. They figured him coming off the Rose Bowl win and being from Houston that they would have had to pay way more than they were willing to. They had a deal with Mario set in place once they came to that realization, and Houston told his agent this.
Chronologically inept since 2060
"I could be writing this crap!" -- Crow T. Robot
Me: Q: I can run but not walk. Wherever I go, thought follows close behind. What am I?
Wrigster A: Theriot
hmm
I spoke to a lot of folks down in Houston that draft that were well connected (media types, to football people, and so on down the line), and most of them told me that Houston didn’t even ponder Vince Young all that seriously. They gave him the cursory look through, but I was told early January that year (I used to be heavily involved in following the NFL draft) that Houston wasn’t even pondering Vince Young. Media folks down in Houston suggested to me early on that, while they were surprised, that Kubiak was going to give David Carr one more twirl, and that there was very little chance of a first round QB, even if I, and others, thought Vince Young made some football sense there. There were a lot of folks that believe Major Adams (his agent) overstated things in an attempt to cover up his piss poor attempt at preparing Vince.
That said, who knows. I’ll be the first to admit I never talked to anyone directly involved with the Texans, so it was all 2nd hand knowledge. Maybe they did ponder it and changed their minds rather early.
who knows is true
as we know, media, management, agents, they never lie
Chronologically inept since 2060
"I could be writing this crap!" -- Crow T. Robot
Me: Q: I can run but not walk. Wherever I go, thought follows close behind. What am I?
Wrigster A: Theriot
While I am *well aware* that this is SSS...
A difference in three picks this year was the difference between Hayden Simpson and Chris Sale.
Now, Simpson may end up passing him… it is certainly only fair to let things play out… but at this point we know Sale is a major league player (a solid bullpen arm at worst). And most indicators are that the Cubs liked Sale, too, which means they might’ve picked him at #16 (Sox picked him at #16).
More importantly… look how much it helped the 2010 Cubs that the 2009 Cubs finished over .500 at 83-79 while the Sox couldn’t even finish .500 at 79-83. Good thing the Cubs won those 4 extra games!
(Note: this post suffers from very small sample size. The author is well aware that there are countless examples where a better player was selected a handful of slots after a bust… just as there are plenty of examples where a club “lost” a player it wanted when the player was snapped up just a pick or two in front of them. The intent here is two-fold: provide a recent example where a couple of picks mattered while also showing that winning an extra couple of games certainly didn’t help the club going forward.)
Shut up Joe Morgan.
by fsuapollo on Sep 7, 2010 10:16 AM CDT reply actions 1 recs
Ack... poor proofreading. Sox picked him at #13.
And for the record, the Brewers had the #14 pick while the Rangers had a compensatory pick at #15.
Shut up Joe Morgan.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
FanShots
Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.
Recommended FanShots
Recent FanShots
Cubs By The Numbers
Cubs By The Numbers is a history of the ballclub by uniform number, but the biographies help trace the history of our beloved team in a new way. For everyone who's a Cubs fan, anyone who ever wore the uniform is like family. Cubs By The Numbers reintroduces readers to some of their long-lost ancestors, even ones they think they already know.
Click here to order your copy, available now!
Recent Stories in Ticket Exchanges
Baseball Nation Recent Stories
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- Photo: Padres fan regrets letting mother capture moment with Trevor Hoffman
- Marlins agree to unretire No. 5 for Logan Morrison, who will honor his father’s favorite player
- Weatherman Derek Holland does Dallas TV
- Ask Alex: Will Julio Teheran or Matt Moore win rookie of the year?
- Ku Klux Klan, umpires and bowling: Why the minor leagues tossed out Jim Evans academy
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
