I never disputed that the second overall pick was more valuable and more important than a second round pick, so why do you keep making that argument? I have never once argued against it.
And again, it's the mindset that you so easily will forfeit a draft pick, who you have 6 years of prime control over to pay a player to decline and pay him the most he will ever make.
Some time, take a look at every player that spent his first 6 years with his first team, and then played for another team.
Over 90% of them gave their best years to their original team, and they made the least amount of money there.
Yes. I will *easily* give up any non-first-round pick for an actual MLB player. Every time. The historical numbers bear me out.
But you're right, it was 5 years ago. Let's be fair and go 15.
In the 1997 2nd-round, there were 30 players taken. 4 went on to produce 10 bWAR or more in their careers.
The year before that, 1996, it was 2 of 30.
The year after that, 1998, it was 2 of 30.
So 8 out of 90 2nd-round picks in a three-year span that should be finishing up their careers now became useful MLB starters for more than a year or two.
In that same time period, 26 out of 90 first-rounders had 10 bWAR careers. The third round had 3 of 90.
Second-round picks have much more in common with third than they do first. The hit rate just isn't significant enough to pass up on useful MLB players in the present.
BTW, since I didn't see anyone answer it:
Greg Maddux is the only Cubs 2nd-round pick in the last 30 years to achieve a career bWAR of at least 1.0 (and his is over 100).
We suck at drafting so bad historically.
Hell even if this isn't a guy you call up, there is a good chance it's a decently highly touted player that you could use him to trade for a veteran piece in a package deal. It's a valuable pick. Bourn might be more valuable, and it would make a lot of sense if Bourn was the only piece you needed left to be a 90+ winner. But you would be signing him to join a team that might win 75 games. By the time the team is competitive, Bourn will be at his highest paid, and likely worst performance of the contract. Save those resources and save the pick and hope you get a Giancarlo Stanton/Jordan Zimmerman and save those resources so that when the team is good, add a Michael Bourn to make the team a 90 win team. Rather than Bourn being an overpaid, declining piece on a good team.
"Good chance" implies that there is data to support what you are saying when there simply is not. This is why you have not presented any study of significance but rather resorted to picking out favorable results from a whole that disagrees with what you are saying.
Of course there is a good chance, and there is a TON of data that suggests he will. Typical start decline age for outfielders is 31.
I don't have to present the data, it's pretty well known that he is the age where players start to decline and you are buying his next 4-6 years.
Lol no, and yet another poor attempt at playing obtuse. You can't walk in all holier than thou accusing people of arguing points you are not making and then pulling this kind of nonsense. That is what trolling is actually...That Michael Bourn will regress?