Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 61 of 97 FirstFirst ... 1151596061626371 ... LastLast
Results 901 to 915 of 1441
  1. #901
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    5,746
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeffy25 View Post
    Giancarlo Stanton. Freddie Freeman and Zach Cozart will after this season (remember, this was just 5 years ago).

    And these were second round picks after the supplemental round.

    That supplemental adds Tommy Hunter, Todd Frazier, Brett Cecil, Cory Luebke, Julio Borbon and 8 other big leaguers.
    The fact that it's only been five years is why I went so light on the WAR standard.

    So, two. And maybe two more soon. 4 out of 30. That's what you are giving up when you give up a second-round pick. A 4-in-30 shot at a meaningful big-leaguer.

  2. #902
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    37,633
    vCash
    1000
    Quote Originally Posted by SenorGato View Post
    It is kind of a big deal in what is being said Jeffy. Please stop trolling and pretending you don't get what is being said, you are not pushing the conversation forward with such petty, weak tactics.
    I get what is being said. But for some reason you keep making an argument that was never stated.

    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.

  3. #903
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    37,633
    vCash
    1000
    Quote Originally Posted by KyleJRM View Post
    So, two. And maybe two more soon. 4 out of 30. That's what you are giving up when you give up a second-round pick. A 4-in-30 shot at a meaningful big-leaguer.
    It's 5 years ago, and 9 of them have already made the big leagues. At least four more have a good chance to make the big leagues still, especially the 18 year olds at that time (23 now).


    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.

  4. #904
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    981
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by KyleJRM View Post
    Out of the 30 picks in that 2007 second-round, how many do you think have put up 5 WAR or more in the majors? Zimmerman is one.
    Giancarlo Stanton. Of course none of this takes into account that the first pick started at 65 and would be the 3rd round of the 2013 draft. Zach Coart, Freddie Freeman are also at 3 WAR.

  5. #905
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    17,408
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeffy25 View Post
    I get what is being said. But for some reason you keep making an argument that was never stated.

    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.
    Stating the second round pick is important is not an argument, it is a statement. It a statement not supported by any statistics, despite being able to pick out individuals from the second round that became good players.

  6. #906
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    5,746
    vCash
    1500
    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.

  7. #907
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    22,941
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeffy25 View Post
    Obviously, but that was never argued. So why are you arguing it?

    Obviously, but that was never argued. So why are you arguing it?
    I think his point is that it doesn't make sense to avoid signing a major league caliber player for the fear of losing a 2nd round picks since MOST 2nd round picks suck. I mean if we signed Michael Bourn I think that gets us closer to a WS than a 2nd round pick would, which should be the main goal.

  8. #908
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    5,746
    vCash
    1500
    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.

  9. #909
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    17,408
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Mell413 View Post
    I think his point is that it doesn't make sense to avoid signing a major league caliber player for the fear of losing a 2nd round picks since MOST 2nd round picks suck. I mean if we signed Michael Bourn I think that gets us closer to a WS than a 2nd round pick would, which should be the main goal.
    He gets the point, he just has no intention of dealing with it in any reasonable, logical fashion.

  10. #910
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    37,633
    vCash
    1000
    Quote Originally Posted by Mell413 View Post
    I think his point is that it doesn't make sense to avoid signing a major league caliber player for the fear of losing a 2nd round picks since MOST 2nd round picks suck. I mean if we signed Michael Bourn I think that gets us closer to a WS than a 2nd round pick would, which should be the main goal.
    He probably does. But there is also a good chance that you overpay for Bourn's decline, and pass on another Jordan Zimmerman type. For a team still being assembled. It doesn't make a lot of sense to pay Bourn to get worse on a last place team when you should be putting all your stock into building a perennial winner from a strong farm system, which that second round pick will likely help.

    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.

  11. #911
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    17,408
    vCash
    1500
    "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.

  12. #912
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    22,941
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeffy25 View Post
    He probably does. But there is also a good chance that you overpay for Bourn's decline, and pass on another Jordan Zimmerman type. For a team still being assembled. It doesn't make a lot of sense to pay Bourn to get worse on a last place team when you should be putting all your stock into building a perennial winner from a strong farm system, which that second round pick will likely help.

    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.
    Well by that logic we shouldn't sign anyone since we can't go from 61 wins to 90 because of one guy. No one player is that good, but if you get enough good players you can be competitive. If you keep avoiding good players the team will continue to be ****. We need more good players not less. Honestly I probably have a better chance of getting a hummer from Lacey Duvalle than the Cubs finding a Mike Stanton type player in the 2nd round.

  13. #913
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    37,633
    vCash
    1000
    Quote Originally Posted by SenorGato View Post
    "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.
    That Michael Bourn will regress?


    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.

  14. #914
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    37,633
    vCash
    1000
    Quote Originally Posted by Mell413 View Post
    Well by that logic we shouldn't sign anyone since we can't go from 61 wins to 90 because of one guy.
    I came into this thread because the discussion is about the philosophy. Signing Edwin Jackson today doesn't go against that philosophy.

  15. #915
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    17,408
    vCash
    1500
    That Michael Bourn will regress?
    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...

Page 61 of 97 FirstFirst ... 1151596061626371 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •