Cubs Con-call with Tyler Colvin

[CubsWin]

I was talking about his chances to be a guy who is worthy of being picked 13th. A guy who has a pretty good shot to contribute at the major league level in a way that is worthy of excitement. Throughout the 90s, about half of the years, there was a guy selected 13th or right around there that turned out to be pretty good and made significant contributions in the majors. And when you look at Wilken's picks...

 

But the point is he shouldn't have been picked 13th. He should have been picked about 140th. Maybe there's a nice list of guys picked around the 13th pick that turned out good, but that doesn't mean you can just throw any name at the 13th spot and say he's got the same chance as all the rest.

Based on what, one prospect list that was how many days old?

 

Colvin was rumored to go to the White Sox later in the first round and was widely reported to be a late riser up the ranks in the days before the draft. Shouldn't that evidence be considered before you label this guy as the 140th best prospect? What about what other scouts and industry professionals who's opinion differ with that of BA? Shouldn't what they have to say also be considered? Is BA the only source worth noting? Shouldn't we also consider the source, Wilken, and his track record as a scout? Doesn't the fact that Wilken drafted Alex Rios who also was nowhere to be seen on BA's pre-draft rankings count for something? It seems like you find a few convenient pieces of evidence that support your very quickly made up opinion and you stop considering the rest of the evidence.

 

Or am I wrong, and you did consider all the evidence but have some reasons why it is meaningless and shouldn't impact your original opinion? Again, I don't know how many times I have to say this, I'm not being sarcastic, I'm truly asking.

[n l doormat]

Colvin was rumored to go to the White Sox later in the first round and was widely reported to be a late riser up the ranks in the days before the draft. Shouldn't that evidence be considered before you label this guy as the 140th best prospect? What about what other scouts and industry professionals who's opinion differ with that of BA? Shouldn't what they have to say also be considered? Is BA the only source worth noting?

First post here. Given how many times they have picked someone #1 that BA designated as a top prospect, only to see them never make it to the majors, or not turn into much as a Cub (though maybe that's a developmental problem), this guy probably has as much of a chance to be good as anyone else. If anything, we'll see if Wilken is all that Hendry makes him out to be. I guess he put his reputation on the line right away.

[CubsWin]

Colvin was rumored to go to the White Sox later in the first round and was widely reported to be a late riser up the ranks in the days before the draft. Shouldn't that evidence be considered before you label this guy as the 140th best prospect? What about what other scouts and industry professionals who's opinion differ with that of BA? Shouldn't what they have to say also be considered? Is BA the only source worth noting?

First post here. Given how many times they have picked someone #1 that BA designated as a top prospect, only to see them never make it to the majors, or not turn into much as a Cub (though maybe that's a developmental problem), this guy probably has as much of a chance to be good as anyone else. If anything, we'll see if Wilken is all that Hendry makes him out to be. I guess he put his reputation on the line right away.

Welcome to the forum!

[craig]

But the point is he shouldn't have been picked 13th. He should have been picked about 140th. Maybe there's a nice list of guys picked around the 13th pick that turned out good, but that doesn't mean you can just throw any name at the 13th spot and say he's got the same chance as all the rest.

 

I'm no scout, so I have no idea where he should really have been picked. He seems like a reach for me, given that: a) I doubt he'll end up with the speed/arm to play center, b) he shows signs that he might be a low-walk hacker, and c) he doesn't seem to project a lot of power. But if he ends up being a pure hitter, he sounds strong enough and projectible enough to hit 20-25 Hr's down the road. So if he hits .285 and 20-25 HR's while playing a good left field, that will be a draft steal, even if not a HOF MVP type.

 

But I have no idea where he should have gone. I think the 140th pick stuff is based on a dated BA evaluation, and that after his red-hot May the Cubs weren't the only club to rate him much, much higher than that. BA talks to a few scouts, and scouts have their own opinions. Once a guy is on BA's list as a super-buzz prospect, I think they talk to a wider pool of sources and get more opinions. My guess is that for a guy like Colvin who didn't enter the year as a super-buzz guy, that BA probably had a hundred other guys that they were much more interested in asking sources about. And if none of the couple of guys they talked to early on were talking 1st/2nd round, then probably they didn't pursue asking other people their opinion, they perhaps assumed there was consensus that he wasn't a real high-round guy.

 

Some of the post-draft BA comments have been interesting: "We were a little slow to react on him in our lists unfortunately." John Manual, night after day one. Seemed to admit that their ranking was in error.

 

http://www.baseballamerica.com/today/askba/261494.html

 

Callis draft stuff, including a lengthy response regarding Colvin to a friend of mine's question. Callis continues to personally believe that Colvin was a questionable and unwise choice, assuming that he was not sub-slot driven and taken so as to save cash for Sam. But he does say that another scouting source just told him he thought it was "an astute pick", tht several teams had Colvin as the highest college outfielder on their boards at the time that the Cubs picked (once their top guy Drew Stubbs was already taken); and that several other teams were considering him for selection late in the first round. Seemed pretty obvious that while he may or may not have gone in the 1st, that he certainly wasn't going to get through the 2nd. Which would make him no worse than top 70.

 

Again, I'm not saying he was a good pick. Seems to have a limited ceiling while still having apretty low floor. Lots lot of bust-potential: he could easily end up being a guy who is LF/1B only, with no walks, no HR's, and no SB. He doesn't project to steal 50 bases or be Ricky Henderson leadoff, or Gold Glove CF, or Barry Bonds power, or a Brian Giles OBP machine, or any of that stuff. All I'm saying is that I don't know enough to accurately judge whether or not he was a reasonable pick, and I doubt you do either, or Jim Callis for that matter. But BA's recent stuff makes it pretty clear that there were a number of other clubs that saw him at least in the top-70 pool and a number in the top 40-range.

[goonys evil twin]

I was talking about his chances to be a guy who is worthy of being picked 13th. A guy who has a pretty good shot to contribute at the major league level in a way that is worthy of excitement. Throughout the 90s, about half of the years, there was a guy selected 13th or right around there that turned out to be pretty good and made significant contributions in the majors. And when you look at Wilken's picks...

 

But the point is he shouldn't have been picked 13th. He should have been picked about 140th. Maybe there's a nice list of guys picked around the 13th pick that turned out good, but that doesn't mean you can just throw any name at the 13th spot and say he's got the same chance as all the rest.

Based on what, one prospect list that was how many days old?

 

Colvin was rumored to go to the White Sox later in the first round and was widely reported to be a late riser up the ranks in the days before the draft. Shouldn't that evidence be considered before you label this guy as the 140th best prospect? What about what other scouts and industry professionals who's opinion differ with that of BA? Shouldn't what they have to say also be considered? Is BA the only source worth noting? Shouldn't we also consider the source, Wilken, and his track record as a scout? Doesn't the fact that Wilken drafted Alex Rios who also was nowhere to be seen on BA's pre-draft rankings count for something? It seems like you find a few convenient pieces of evidence that support your very quickly made up opinion and you stop considering the rest of the evidence.

 

Or am I wrong, and you did consider all the evidence but have some reasons why it is meaningless and shouldn't impact your original opinion? Again, I don't know how many times I have to say this, I'm not being sarcastic, I'm truly asking.

 

The 140th thing is probably not very accurate. But the point is you can't just say he's worthy of 13th pick status (and immune to criticism) because he was picked 13th by the Cubs. The history of past 13th picks doesn't mean a darn thing when it comes to this 13th pick. Everybody thought it was an overdraft. Colvin himself was shocked to go that early. What you need to think about is the likelihood of a guy ranked from anywhere between 29-70+ (with 140 likely out of the range) succeeding at the major league level. Because that is the type of player the Cubs drafed. Yes there is still a chance. But his odds don't increase just because he was selected 13th.

[NorthsideAvenger]

Physically and talent wise, Colvin reminds of this guy.....

http://baseballreference.com/o/o'neipa01.shtml

 

Pretty good player, wouldn't you say?

 

Now, I am not saying Colvin will be another O'neill, but I do believe that Colvin will be a darn good player for the Cubs. I believe Colvin is going to justified being the 13th pick.

 

That is why I DISLIKE short-term analysis, esp during/immediately after the draft. That is so shortsided. You have to wait till 2008 before you can fully critique the pick of Colvin at 13th.

[texascub]

Physically and talent wise, Colvin reminds of this guy.....

http://baseballreference.com/o/o'neipa01.shtml

 

Pretty good player, wouldn't you say?

 

Now, I am not saying Colvin will be another O'neill, but I do believe that Colvin will be a darn good player for the Cubs. I believe Colvin is going to justified being the 13th pick.

 

That is why I DISLIKE short-term analysis, esp during/immediately after the draft. That is so shortsided. You have to wait till 2008 before you can fully critique the pick of Colvin at 13th.

 

Your link is broken, but I assume that you're talking about Paul O'neill? Physical wise, Colvin does have a little bit of young O'Neill in him but I think it is much too early to be comparing them in terms of talent.

[CubsWin]

The 140th thing is probably not very accurate. But the point is you can't just say he's worthy of 13th pick status (and immune to criticism) because he was picked 13th by the Cubs.

Again, you are trying to put words in my mouth. I never said that. In fact, what I did was ask a question. Is he worth getting excited about as any other 13th pick? You said no and provided some reasons only one of which I disagreed with.

 

I also asked is this pick worthy of something other than sarcasm, especially in the immediate hours after the draft. Did we have anything else to say about this pick besides sarcasm? I asked that because I wanted to hear people's honest opinions about Colvin and the sarcasm surrounding Dusty and OBP got old for me a long time ago. It was in no way an attempt to get people to stop criticizing the Cubs as you continue to imply.

 

For me, there will always be things to criticize, and you seem to be an expert at finding them, good for you. Don't stop. All I am attempting to provide is a little balance to the opinion-forming discussions we have on this board.

 

It may seem to you that I am only and always just saying positive things about the Cubs. I submit to you that that is because you are consistently leaving them out and mentioning largely only the negative. Thus, balance.

 

Clearly the Cubs are not immune to criticism nor are any of their draft picks. When you wrote...

He doesn't seem to be much of a patient guy. And he doesn't have a strong track record of performance. He was also rated much, much, much lower than where he was selected. Wouldn't you expect a football fan to question his team if they drafted a guy in the first round who everybody else had listed as a 3rd or 4th rounder?

 

I don't think he's worth getting excited about. Maybe in a few years he'll be a halfway decent baseball player, but that's not exactly exciting.

I only disagreed with the amount of emphasis you placed on his BA ranking and I thank you for seeing the logic on that point. I agree that he doesn't have much of a history of performance, just this season really, and that is a cause for concern. Of course, he is still just a junior. I also agree that he doesn't walk a lot. But, mainly, what I disagreed with was the utter lack of any of his positive qualities.

 

I honestly hope you can see that I'm not asking you to stop criticizing anyone or anything. I'm simply trying to provide a little perspective, a little balance to our discussions. If that annoys you, so be it. But please stop with the "immune to criticism" comments. Its becoming almost comical. They simply aren't accurate and don't apply.

[illiniguy]

The odds of any given player being great, with the possible exception of the #1 or #2 overall pick, are extremely small. A significant percentage of first round draft picks don't even reach the majors.

 

Past #1 & #2 picks since 1980:

 

1980 - Darryl Strawberry (#1), Gary Harris (#2)

1981 - Mike Moore (#1), Joe Carter (#2)

1982 - Shawon Dunston (#1), Augie Schmidt (#2)

1983 - Tim Belcher (#1), Kurt Stillwell (#2)

1984 - Shawn Abner (#1), Bill Swift (#2)

1985 - BJ Surhoff (#1), Will Clark (#2)

1986 - Jeff King (#1), Greg Swindell (#2)

1987 - Ken Griffey Jr. (#1), Mark Merchant (#2)

1988 - Andy Benes (#1), Mark Lewis (#2)

1989 - Ben McDonald (#1), Tyler Houston (#2)

1990 - Chipper Jones (#1), Tony Clark (#2)

1991 - Brien Taylor (#1), Mike Kelly (#2)

1992 - Phil Nevin (#1), Paul Shuey (#2)

1993 - Alex Rodriguez (#1), Darren Dreifort (#2)

1994 - Paul Wilson (#1), Ben Grieve (#2)

1995 - Darin Erstad (#1), Ben Davis (#2)

1996 - Kris Benson (#1), Travis Lee(#2)

1997 - Matt Anderson (#1), JD Drew (#2)

1998 - Pat Burrell (#1), Mark Mulder (#2)

1999 - Josh Hamilton (#1), Josh Beckett (#2)

2000 - Adrian Gonzalez (#1), Adam Johnson (#2)

2001 - Joe Mauer (#1), Mark Prior (#2)

2002 - Bryan Bullington (#1), BJ Upton (#2)

2003 - Delmon Young (#1), Rickie Weeks (#2)

2004 - Matt Bush (#1), Justin Verlander (#2)

2005 - Justin Upton (#1), Alex Gordon (#2)

2006 - Luke Hochevar (#1), Greg Reynolds (#2)

 

Uhhhhhhh...define "great". A-Rod and Ken Griffey Jr. are first ballot HOFers...but after that, the list gets a bit dicey. Some very good players are on there...but great?

 

It's a bit early to cast judgment on a number of guys on this list, though. We'll see how they pan out over the coming years.

Chipper Jones is/was great.

[Outshined_One]

Chipper Jones is/was great.

 

You know, I had tossed Chipper in the very good pile due to his moving back and forth between 3B and the OF, recent injuries, and always being overshadowed by more well-known players during his era. I then went back and looked at his credentials after you wrote this post. My memory is fading in my old age, it turns out!

 

He's not a first ballot HOF, but he definitely has a good shot of getting in some day.

[Soul]

The Cubs have lost the right to be given the benefit of the doubt.

 

There wasn't a single person on the planet who had Colvin anywhere *NEAR* 13. This is an extreme reach of a pick, there's just no question about it. Even the kid can't believe it---he knew, as well.

 

 

If he does work out, which I nevertheless hope he does, it won't be because it was a solid pick at that position.

[CaliforniaRaisin]

The Cubs have lost the right to be given the benefit of the doubt.

 

The Cubs don't, but Tim Wilken does.

[goonys evil twin]

The Cubs have lost the right to be given the benefit of the doubt.

 

The Cubs don't, but Tim Wilken does.

 

I don't think so. He's employed by the Cubs, hired by the Hendry/MacPhail regime. That alone is enough to tarnish whatever image he had coming in.

[CaliforniaRaisin]

The Cubs have lost the right to be given the benefit of the doubt.

 

The Cubs don't, but Tim Wilken does.

 

I don't think so. He's employed by the Cubs, hired by the Hendry/MacPhail regime. That alone is enough to tarnish whatever image he had coming in.

 

I'll give him the benefit of the doubt since he has full control of draft decisions.

[goonys evil twin]

The Cubs have lost the right to be given the benefit of the doubt.

 

The Cubs don't, but Tim Wilken does.

 

I don't think so. He's employed by the Cubs, hired by the Hendry/MacPhail regime. That alone is enough to tarnish whatever image he had coming in.

 

I'll give him the benefit of the doubt since he has full control of draft decisions.

 

I can't help but maintain a large amount of skepticism about any decision made by anybody involved with this organization.

[NorthsideAvenger]

The Cubs have lost the right to be given the benefit of the doubt.

 

The Cubs don't, but Tim Wilken does.

 

I don't think so. He's employed by the Cubs, hired by the Hendry/MacPhail regime. That alone is enough to tarnish whatever image he had coming in.

 

I'll give him the benefit of the doubt since he has full control of draft decisions.

 

I can't help but maintain a large amount of skepticism about any decision made by anybody involved with this organization.

 

Until Wilken is "brainwash" into the way of the Cubs thinking, I'd give him the benefit of the doubt. Nobody else, tho.

[Mephistopheles]

With Hendry's experience dealing with the draft and player development, it'd be stupid to think that Wilken came up with the draft "plan" (if you can call it that) all by himself. Let's not forget we took tools over production with Samardzija. For a guy with power stuff, he can't strike out kids in the rather weak Big East.

[CUBZ99]

With Hendry's experience dealing with the draft and player development, it'd be stupid to think that Wilken came up with the draft "plan" (if you can call it that) all by himself. Let's not forget we took tools over production with Samardzija. For a guy with power stuff, he can't strike out kids in the rather weak Big East.

 

It is safe to say that Wilken made the call on Colvin. The past first round picks (except Prior) under Hendry have all been toolsy players that needed alot of refinement. Colvin, while not refined, does not fit into the previous category.

 

You are probably correct to assume that Hendry made the call in regard to Samardzija, but in the 5th round he was hardly over drafted. His measly $250,000 signing bonus make the pick even more likeable. Say that Samardzija doesn't work out or chooses football over baseball, the risk by taking him in the fifth round was justified and the Cubs are not out any significant amount of money. As far as the rest of the draft, I will hold out any criticism until we get an opportunity to see what Wilken drafted. Lets face it, some of us loved previous drafts and alot of those players did not turn out so well.

[CaliforniaRaisin]

With Hendry's experience dealing with the draft and player development, it'd be stupid to think that Wilken came up with the draft "plan" (if you can call it that) all by himself. Let's not forget we took tools over production with Samardzija. For a guy with power stuff, he can't strike out kids in the rather weak Big East.

 

I'm sure Hendry had some input but the Colvin pick seems like the M.O. for a Wilken type. If Hendry had more of a voice, I'd guess one of the HS bats or Drabek/Jeffress would have been the pick.

 

Hendry and Wilken have said that the draft and the first round pick were all Wilken.