2016 MLB Draft

[ShandyMan]

I can say that this isn't true, at least not for the Cubs. They got to where they are now through getting incredible return value from their trades. Rizzo, Russell, Arrieta, all worked out perfectly for them. McKinney will contribute at some point next year. They are also extremely aggressive in LA spending, signing Soler and shattered the budget on a years to stock their farm.

 

On the other hand, of the 3 first round picks on their team, Schwarber was definitely not the BPA at the time, Baez was a mild reach. Only Bryant was the BPA out of the first round picks.

 

Kyle Schwarber hit .143 with 27 K/ 61 PA this year against LHP and also cooled down drastically at the end of the year. Forget the hype, Let's see how that looks next year.

[Boopa1219]

Dalbec reminded me of Matt Davidson after watching some video of him and reading that report reinforces that comp.

 

Do not want

[Dunt]

Dalbec reminded me of Matt Davidson after watching some video of him and reading that report reinforces that comp.

 

Do not want

 

Yup, big time risk involved in that pick. Really hope he can cut down on his K's at school next season to make it interesting. I'd really love for Banks to fall to the Sox personally. It looks like we should have some nice names available for our 2nd and 3rd picks too if we keep them.

[Bigsoxhurt35]

So what are the top 5 hitters looking like? (Long long ways to go. Just curious)

[LDF]

So what are the top 5 hitters looking like? (Long long ways to go. Just curious)

 

that will be sooo subjective if you think about the way the so call experts rank them as well if you think of hs'ers or college players.

 

also if one will take this on the mock draft, those that are out there and have done a couple as of right now, even then it is still varies.

 

for me, at this time, i look and will keep the fan graph early draft as the bible, b/c they have a nice write up on the profile for each of their projected 1 rounders.

[Boopa1219]

Schwarber was definitely not the BPA at the time, Baez was a mild reach. Only Bryant was the BPA out of the first round picks.

 

They weren't BPA to you, every team values and scouts players differently and have very different boards. Those three were BPA to the Cubs, and thats why they drafted them

[GoodAsGould]

They weren't BPA to you, every team values and scouts players differently and have very different boards. Those three were BPA to the Cubs, and thats why they drafted them

 

Thats not true..... you need to factor in $

[BlackSox13]

Thats not true..... you need to factor in $

In all fairness, Schwarber was considered the best college bat in the draft and we all know how the cubs like drafting hitters.The cubs also had Schwarber #2 on their draft board behind Aiken so to the cubs, Schwarber was the BPA. Schwarber wasn't projected to go #4 and many were surprised with the pick which not only reinforces that the cubs thought he was the BPA but allowed the cubs to sign him under alot.

 

As for Baez, the cubs had their eye on him and were hoping Baez would fall to them so in the mind of the cubs he was the BPA @ #9 in '11.

 

Joshua is spot on in his post.

Edited October 18, 2015 by BlackSox13

[Boopa1219]

Thats not true..... you need to factor in $

 

Isn't that a given?

[thxfrthmmrs]

In all fairness, Schwarber was considered the best college bat in the draft and we all know how the cubs like drafting hitters.The cubs also had Schwarber #2 on their draft board behind Aiken so to the cubs, Schwarber was the BPA. Schwarber wasn't projected to go #4 and many were surprised with the pick which not only reinforces that the cubs thought he was the BPA but allowed the cubs to sign him under alot.

 

As for Baez, the cubs had their eye on him and were hoping Baez would fall to them so in the mind of the cubs he was the BPA @ #9 in '11.

 

Joshua is spot on in his post.

 

Is he really though? What he's challenging here is precisely how Schwarber end up being the #2 on the Cub's board in 2014.

 

i can see this debate in a good theory and based on good judgement with available information. with the opinion that sometimes players hopes may not become, if development fails.

 

but when a team is picking in the 7- 10, i will always take, a pitcher, unless a hitter comes with a huge gossip of being a great prospect. some can say this is in theory BPA.... it might but at this stage, the best player for the teams needs.

 

however the level of pitching, at this present time, only the top 2 or 3 are what i would considered excellent prospect / sp.

 

however how can you not look acquiring an elite bat over the possibility of getting a sp.

 

now the only defense in my defense is 2 players who were passed over.... mike trout and giancarlo stanton were never considered BPA, but had a rep for a powerful bat.

 

The Cubs had Schwarber at #2 on their board not because they thought he was the 2nd best player in the draft, but to them he was the second best option when they factoring in the $$(which is the biggest factor), their success in developing hitters, and their plan to develop hitters through the system, then trade or sign pitchers in the FA. In other words, if Sox draft a pitcher who's ranked lower than a hitter on most boards because they have a stronger track record in pitching development, and they could save $$ for later rounds, then they are still taking the BPA from their perspective, which I am fine with as well.

[LDF]

The Cubs had Schwarber at #2 on their board not because they thought he was the 2nd best player in the draft, but to them he was the second best option when they factoring in the $$(which is the biggest factor), their success in developing hitters, and their plan to develop hitters through the system, then trade or sign pitchers in the FA. In other words, if Sox draft a pitcher who's ranked lower than a hitter on most boards because they have a stronger track record in pitching development, and they could save $$ for later rounds, then they are still taking the BPA from their perspective, which I am fine with as well.

 

you are 100 % on this. this has been my main argument and and defense on those who wants to argue the BPA selection and debate.

 

the BPA as i have always have said is subjective and the main org are the only one who can define their reasoning. the last debate on this was around the past draft.

[Boopa1219]

Is he really though? What he's challenging here is precisely how Schwarber end up being the #2 on the Cub's board in 2014.

 

 

 

The Cubs had Schwarber at #2 on their board not because they thought he was the 2nd best player in the draft, but to them he was the second best option when they factoring in the $$(which is the biggest factor), their success in developing hitters, and their plan to develop hitters through the system, then trade or sign pitchers in the FA. In other words, if Sox draft a pitcher who's ranked lower than a hitter on most boards because they have a stronger track record in pitching development, and they could save $$ for later rounds, then they are still taking the BPA from their perspective, which I am fine with as well.

 

$ is not the biggest factor, talent is. If the pick allows for some flexibility with the bonus pool then great, but it's always talent before $.

[BlackSox13]

They weren't BPA to you, every team values and scouts players differently and have very different boards. Those three were BPA to the Cubs, and thats why they drafted them

 

 

Is he really though? What he's challenging here is precisely how Schwarber end up being the #2 on the Cub's board in 2014.

 

 

 

The Cubs had Schwarber at #2 on their board not because they thought he was the 2nd best player in the draft, but to them he was the second best option when they factoring in the $$(which is the biggest factor), their success in developing hitters, and their plan to develop hitters through the system, then trade or sign pitchers in the FA. In other words, if Sox draft a pitcher who's ranked lower than a hitter on most boards because they have a stronger track record in pitching development, and they could save $$ for later rounds, then they are still taking the BPA from their perspective, which I am fine with as well.

The way I'm reading Joshua's post is that the cubs took the best player available when their turn to pick came up. Who was #1 on their draft board and who was picked before the cubs is irrelevant. What matters is the players that were available at the time of the cubs pick and how the cubs viewed the available players.

 

Joshua, am I reading your post correctly? I'm pretty sure I am and in agreement with you.

[thxfrthmmrs]

With the new draft system, every team has their own strategy to take the best collective group of talent to stay within the budget they are allocated to. Gone are the days where you take a Matt Bush or a Kyle McCollough so you could limit your draft spending, as you would need to meet the spending floor. On the other hand, the new draft system doesn't always let you take the BPA because your spending is limited, so you have to look at which collective group of talent would give you the best return in the long term. To say the Cards, Cubs, and Braves always took the BPA, especially in recent years, just isn't true at all.

 

Every pick, especially in the first 10 rounds, could be broken down into BPA, or BOA (best option available). A pick like Rodon would be considered BPA, which limit your spending in later rounds, but you are getting a surefire MLB player with a high ceiling. A pick like Schwarber was the BOA, because it satisfy their goals of selecting a bat and saving money for later rounds.

 

I'd have no issues with Sox picking an arm over a bat next year, as long as there isn't a huge gap in talent, which was what LDF suggested in the original post. Picking an arm in that scenario would likely give them a guy they have higher chance of developing, and if it's under slot, it gives them money they could work with in later rounds.

 

[Quin]

Wasn't there a rumor going into the draft that Theo coveted Rodon?

[thxfrthmmrs]

Wasn't there a rumor going into the draft that Theo coveted Rodon?

 

It would be interesting to see if they would've taken Rodon if he was still there. But based on stories after the draft, Schwarber was the guy they wanted. But they might have said that so their first round pick didn't feel like a consolation prize.

[Quin]

It would be interesting to see if they would've taken Rodon if he was still there. But based on stories after the draft, Schwarber was the guy they wanted. But they might have said that so their first round pick didn't feel like a consolation prize.

 

Right, like how the Angels said Trout was #2 on their draft board after Strasburg.

 

Which is why they took Randal Grichuk before him.

[Boopa1219]

The way I'm reading Joshua's post is that the cubs took the best player available when their turn to pick came up. Who was #1 on their draft board and who was picked before the cubs is irrelevant. What matters is the players that were available at the time of the cubs pick and how the cubs viewed the available players.

 

Joshua, am I reading your post correctly? I'm pretty sure I am and in agreement with you.

 

Yes, you are.

[southsider2k5]

Wasn't there a rumor going into the draft that Theo coveted Rodon?

 

Yeah, this totally.

[Eminor3rd]

Wasn't there a rumor going into the draft that Theo coveted Rodon?

 

I mean I'm sure tons of GMs coveted Rodon.

[GGajewski18]

Oklahoma RHP Alec Hanson didn't participate all of fall due to forearm soreness. Candidate to go 1-1 this year in the draft.

[ChiSoxFanMike]

The Cubs would have taken Rodon if the Sox didn't. In fact, he was #1 on both team's boards.

Agreed.

 

The Cubs offense would survive without Schwarber, and their rotation would become 10X better with Rodon instead of Hendricks or Hammel.

[ChiliIrishHammock24]

Oklahoma RHP Alec Hanson didn't participate all of fall due to forearm soreness. Candidate to go 1-1 this year in the draft.

 

Maybe he will have TJS and fall right in that 8-12 range like we have seen the past few years.

[Y2Jimmy0]

Maybe he will have TJS and fall right in that 8-12 range like we have seen the past few years.

 

 

I was thinking the exact same thing.

[southsider2k5]

I can think of one player the Sox drafted in that situation, and I am not sure if they knew ahead of time that is what they were drafting, in Blake Hickman.