2007 Cubs Pick Discussion

[jersey cubs fan]

work ethic and take-charge ability are all considered the strengths of his game

 

 

We got ourselves a tryer.

[Chocolate Milk]

I can vouch that he plays the game the right way. I saw a clip and he appeared to be running the bases in the correct order. He also points towards the outfield when hitting and catching.

[SweetZombieJesus]

So, who are the likely candidates for the Cubs' next pick?

 

Someone from Notre Dame.

 

Porcello's teammate Evan Danieli?

[Lockes Eye Scar]

we drafted michael cuddyer, yay

[Transmogrified Tiger]

I can vouch that he plays the game the right way. I saw a clip and he appeared to be running the bases in the correct order. He also points towards the outfield when hitting and catching.

 

Whew.

 

 

Getting away from depressing scouting reports, here's his line: .349/.444/.591/1.036, 17/20 SB, 38/27 BB/K. He caught 38.7% of 31 baserunners stealing.

 

There may be holes in his swing, but that's a pretty impressive line. His conference line: .313/.389/.446/.835, 46.7% of 15 baserunners caught stealing.

[jersey cubs fan]

Is it safe to say that Wilken's strategy is to draft guys who are likely to make the bigs, but probably not be anything special?

 

Between Colvin, Samardzija, Vitters and Donaldson it seems like we might have ourselves a 4th OF, a reliever, an okay third baseman and a backup catcher.

[RichHillIsABeast]

Is it safe to say that Wilken's strategy is to draft guys who are likely to make the bigs, but probably not be anything special?

 

Between Colvin, Samardzija, Vitters and Donaldson it seems like we might have ourselves a 4th OF, a reliever, an okay third baseman and a backup catcher.

 

You mean guys like Vernon Wells and Michael Young? Oh, and not to mention Nomar, who he wanted but was overruled on at the last minute.

 

Nope, Wilken can't identify special talent.

[Guest]

I can vouch that he plays the game the right way. I saw a clip and he appeared to be running the bases in the correct order. He also points towards the outfield when hitting and catching.

 

Whew.

 

 

Getting away from depressing scouting reports, here's his line: .349/.444/.591/1.036, 17/20 SB, 38/27 BB/K. He caught 38.7% of 31 baserunners stealing.

 

There may be holes in his swing, but that's a pretty impressive line. His conference line: .313/.389/.446/.835, 46.7% of 15 baserunners caught stealing.

 

Nice numbers...and he's in the SEC.

[YearofDaCubs]

Is it safe to say that Wilken's strategy is to draft guys who are likely to make the bigs, but probably not be anything special?

 

Between Colvin, Samardzija, Vitters and Donaldson it seems like we might have ourselves a 4th OF, a reliever, an okay third baseman and a backup catcher.

 

You mean guys like Vernon Wells and Michael Young? Oh, and not to mention Nomar, who he wanted but was overruled on at the last minute.

 

Nope, Wilken can't identify special talent.

It's too early to see how the picks pan out as of right now. Maybe in a couple of years we'll know how Wilken did. As far as Samarjiza, was he more of a Hendry pick or Wilken pick considering Hendry's ties at Notre Dame.

[jersey cubs fan]

Is it safe to say that Wilken's strategy is to draft guys who are likely to make the bigs, but probably not be anything special?

 

Between Colvin, Samardzija, Vitters and Donaldson it seems like we might have ourselves a 4th OF, a reliever, an okay third baseman and a backup catcher.

 

You mean guys like Vernon Wells and Michael Young? Oh, and not to mention Nomar, who he wanted but was overruled on at the last minute.

 

Nope, Wilken can't identify special talent.

 

I'm talking about his strategy with the Cubs. The 2 guys he drafted last year weren't really thought of as likely stars, and neither is off to a start that suggests star potential. And both of today's picks are of the non-star caliber.

 

I never said he couldn't identify special talent. Identifying it, and drafting it aren't the same thing though.

[RichHillIsABeast]

I can vouch that he plays the game the right way. I saw a clip and he appeared to be running the bases in the correct order. He also points towards the outfield when hitting and catching.

 

Whew.

 

 

Getting away from depressing scouting reports, here's his line: .349/.444/.591/1.036, 17/20 SB, 38/27 BB/K. He caught 38.7% of 31 baserunners stealing.

 

There may be holes in his swing, but that's a pretty impressive line. His conference line: .313/.389/.446/.835, 46.7% of 15 baserunners caught stealing.

 

Wieters was at .358/.480/.592/1.072 in his senior season for all you stat hounds out there.

 

* I'm not saying our pick is better than Wieters. There's a big difference with lumber - which Wieters has shown he can handle very well.

[Lockes Eye Scar]

Did Wilken say who he was going to take if Vitters went to the Royals?

[Guest]

Vitters is most certainly capable of being a star-level talent.

 

What I don't understand is the following from a few people here:

 

Pick 1: Bash the Cubs for taking the high school hitter at a less premium position than the college catcher from a premier conference with great numbers and excellent BB/K ratio.

 

Pick 1a: Bash the Cubs for taking the college catcher from a premier conference with great numbers and excellent BB/K ratio instead of the high school hitter at a less premium position.

[CoolHandLuke]

Did Wilken say who he was going to take if Vitters went to the Royals?

 

Seemed like all indications pointed to Jarrod Parker.

[RichHillIsABeast]

Is it safe to say that Wilken's strategy is to draft guys who are likely to make the bigs, but probably not be anything special?

 

Between Colvin, Samardzija, Vitters and Donaldson it seems like we might have ourselves a 4th OF, a reliever, an okay third baseman and a backup catcher.

 

You mean guys like Vernon Wells and Michael Young? Oh, and not to mention Nomar, who he wanted but was overruled on at the last minute.

 

Nope, Wilken can't identify special talent.

 

I'm talking about his strategy with the Cubs. The 2 guys he drafted last year weren't really thought of as likely stars, and neither is off to a start that suggests star potential. And both of today's picks are of the non-star caliber.

 

I never said he couldn't identify special talent. Identifying it, and drafting it aren't the same thing though.

 

Wilken had Shark as the best pitcher in the draft, and it certainly wasn't on polish, lol. It was all projected ceiling.

 

Come on man, they've played less than a full season of pro ball so far. The list of good/excellent ML players who sucked it up during their first taste of pro ball is long and distinguished. It's no surprise that Shark isn't lights out as a starter, considering he hasn't been pitching long (not going to have great command) and has undeveloped offspeed stuff. He's raw, big time.

 

Colvin is looking pretty good, IMO, and he has tons of projectability left with that lanky frame of his. He's proven he can add muscle in the offseason. It's just going to take time.

 

You're judging a draft ONE YEAR later. Not good.

 

Wilken usually turns out 4-5 ML players every draft. That's pretty good. Let's just hope Hendry doesn't trade those guys away before they hit the bigs.

[Sarcastic]

Vitters is most certainly capable of being a star-level talent.

 

What I don't understand is the following from a few people here:

 

Pick 1: Bash the Cubs for taking the high school hitter at a less premium position than the college catcher from a premier conference with great numbers and excellent BB/K ratio.

 

Pick 1a: Bash the Cubs for taking the college catcher from a premier conference with great numbers and excellent BB/K ratio instead of the high school hitter at a less premium position.

 

Pessimism doesn't work on a logical basis. The main logic here, I think, is that people wanted Wilken to draft players who were more highly thought of by the sports media (players with more hype around them) because they expect them to play best. I don't think anybody really expected to get Donaldson, so it is easy to think of him as a no talent nobody drafted too high.

 

For the record, I have no idea whether these picks will work out or not, just making an observation.

Edited June 7, 2007 by Sarcastic

[jersey cubs fan]

Vitters is most certainly capable of being a star-level talent.

 

What I don't understand is the following from a few people here:

 

Pick 1: Bash the Cubs for taking the high school hitter at a less premium position than the college catcher from a premier conference with great numbers and excellent BB/K ratio.

 

Pick 1a: Bash the Cubs for taking the college catcher from a premier conference with great numbers and excellent BB/K ratio instead of the high school hitter at a less premium position.

 

I'm not bashing them myself. But I'm reading stuff about this guy being a potential backup catcher who tries really hard and plays the game the right way. I'm not claiming any sort of expertise, rather relying on others. And it seems to me the Cubs took cheaper, lesser caliber players. Not necessarily bad players. And to be quite honest, getting guys who are likely to contribute in the majors is not necessarily a bad thing.

[Guest]

Vitters is most certainly capable of being a star-level talent.

 

What I don't understand is the following from a few people here:

 

Pick 1: Bash the Cubs for taking the high school hitter at a less premium position than the college catcher from a premier conference with great numbers and excellent BB/K ratio.

 

Pick 1a: Bash the Cubs for taking the college catcher from a premier conference with great numbers and excellent BB/K ratio instead of the high school hitter at a less premium position.

 

I'm not bashing them myself. But I'm reading stuff about this guy being a potential backup catcher who tries really hard and plays the game the right way. I'm not claiming any sort of expertise, rather relying on others. And it seems to me the Cubs took cheaper, lesser caliber players. Not necessarily bad players. And to be quite honest, getting guys who are likely to contribute in the majors is not necessarily a bad thing.

 

The guy was 74 on BA's Top 200, not sure that he will be a backup C if he's ranked that highly. This isn't a reach, even if some of the scouting reports aren't that great.

[CoolHandLuke]

Vitters is most certainly capable of being a star-level talent.

 

What I don't understand is the following from a few people here:

 

Pick 1: Bash the Cubs for taking the high school hitter at a less premium position than the college catcher from a premier conference with great numbers and excellent BB/K ratio.

 

Pick 1a: Bash the Cubs for taking the college catcher from a premier conference with great numbers and excellent BB/K ratio instead of the high school hitter at a less premium position.

 

Haha, I love the irony.

 

I think it is mostly because people want to be as sure as possible they are getting an elite prospect with a third pick, but with a later pick they are more accepting of risky high school prospects.

 

I don't mind the Vitters pick, as long as the primary motivation behind it was that they actually thought he was the BPA, and not because they need to be stingy with the money. And my anger, if the pick was financially motivated, is mostly directed toward the circumstances of the impending sale of the team and not Hendry or Wilkin or anyone in the front office.

 

I also don't mind the Donaldson pick, because he looks like he could be a solid hitter, I just want to be the team who throws their financial weight around to give themselves really good drafts every year no matter where they pick, like the Yankees, Red Sox, or us last year(although in my opinion we did it poorly, but what is my opinion worth?)

 

If we had Wieters and Harvey right now I would be much happier than I am, but Vitters and Donaldson isn't terrible, imo.

[jersey cubs fan]

Wilken had Shark as the best pitcher in the draft, and it certainly wasn't on polish, lol. It was all projected ceiling.

 

Come on man, they've played less than a full season of pro ball so far. The list of good/excellent ML players who sucked it up during their first taste of pro ball is long and distinguished. It's no surprise that Shark isn't lights out as a starter, considering he hasn't been pitching long (not going to have great command) and has undeveloped offspeed stuff. He's raw, big time.

 

Colvin is looking pretty good, IMO, and he has tons of projectability left with that lanky frame of his. He's proven he can add muscle in the offseason. It's just going to take time.

 

You're judging a draft ONE YEAR later. Not good.

 

Wilken usually turns out 4-5 ML players every draft. That's pretty good. Let's just hope Hendry doesn't trade those guys away before they hit the bigs.

 

I'm not judging a draft. I'm characterizing the type of pick. It looks safe to me, rather than extremely high upside. And I'm not saying I hate the idea. It just appears to be part of the strategy.

 

But Samardzija has been a lot worse than just "not lights out". And Colvin's pathetic k/bb suggests trouble.

[Outshined_One]

Vitters is most certainly capable of being a star-level talent.

 

What I don't understand is the following from a few people here:

 

Pick 1: Bash the Cubs for taking the high school hitter at a less premium position than the college catcher from a premier conference with great numbers and excellent BB/K ratio.

 

Pick 1a: Bash the Cubs for taking the college catcher from a premier conference with great numbers and excellent BB/K ratio instead of the high school hitter at a less premium position.

 

hee hee hee

 

I can dig this draft so far. The system needed a shot in the arm with position players in the absolute worst way possible. After Colvin, the position players the Cubs have in A ball and below don't exactly inspire confidence in me. Maybe Rundle, Andersen, Baez, or someone like that will destroy the ball at Boise, but right now, I'm not all too giddy about the hitting prospects this team has down in Daytona and below.

[jersey cubs fan]

Pessimism doesn't work on a logical basis.

 

 

This nonsense again?

 

I like how everytime people question a move by the Cubs they are being illogical pessimists.

[Guest]

Vitters is most certainly capable of being a star-level talent.

 

What I don't understand is the following from a few people here:

 

Pick 1: Bash the Cubs for taking the high school hitter at a less premium position than the college catcher from a premier conference with great numbers and excellent BB/K ratio.

 

Pick 1a: Bash the Cubs for taking the college catcher from a premier conference with great numbers and excellent BB/K ratio instead of the high school hitter at a less premium position.

 

hee hee hee

 

I can dig this draft so far. The system needed a shot in the arm with position players in the absolute worst way possible. After Colvin, the position players the Cubs have in A ball and below don't exactly inspire confidence in me. Maybe Rundle, Andersen, Baez, or someone like that will destroy the ball at Boise, but right now, I'm not all too giddy about the hitting prospects this team has down in Daytona and below.

 

I think Andersen will shoot up the rankings after Boise this season, jmo.

[hawkeyecub]

Vitters is most certainly capable of being a star-level talent.

 

What I don't understand is the following from a few people here:

 

Pick 1: Bash the Cubs for taking the high school hitter at a less premium position than the college catcher from a premier conference with great numbers and excellent BB/K ratio.

 

Pick 1a: Bash the Cubs for taking the college catcher from a premier conference with great numbers and excellent BB/K ratio instead of the high school hitter at a less premium position.

 

Exactly.

 

A number of the people who prefer production over relying on scouting reports are just reacting to a couple scouting reports, while almost ignoring that he produced so well as a catcher in the best conference in the country.

[Sarcastic]

Pessimism doesn't work on a logical basis.

 

 

This nonsense again?

 

I like how everytime people question a move by the Cubs they are being illogical pessimists.

 

The first reaction that some posters had (the ones Tim was referring to) was to judge Donaldson very harshly based on a few blurbs about him. In some cases said reports were the first posters had ever heard of him. That is pessimism. I make no argument about pessimism regarding any other moves except on a per item basis.

Edited June 7, 2007 by Sarcastic