2007 Cubs Pick Discussion

[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.

 

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

 

I liked him as a sleeper before you did, so :P

[USSoccer]

Goonsey isn't bashing the picks, though. He's noticing a potential pattern in Wilken's draft philosphy.

 

And even those who are bashing the pick have plenty cause for concern. The Cubs don't do well developing players (or, as Bruce said, development is less important than ceiling/talent), so why not take the guys with the highest ceiling possible instead of "safe" picks?

Edited June 7, 2007 by USSoccer

[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.

 

I liked him as a sleeper before you did, so :P

 

Fair enough, but I deserve kudos for Renshaw, then.

[Guest]

Goonsey isn't bashing the picks, though. He's noticing a potential pattern in Wilkin's draft philosphy.

 

And even those who are bashing the pick have plenty cause for concern. The Cubs don't do well developing players (or, as Bruce said, development is less important than ceiling/talent), so why not take the guys with the highest ceiling possible instead of "safe" picks?

 

That's not what they're bashing about, though.

[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.

 

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, which in some cases was the first posters had even read about him. That is pessimism. I make no argument about pessimism regarding any other moves except on a per item basis.

 

That is not pessimism, that is expressing a reaction to the first news you see. If the first stuff we saw was great, we'd have been much more positive.

 

Your labeling of people as pessmists is just flat out ignorant. If people are expecting/wanting one thing, and they see something different, their first reaction is never going to be oh great this is awesome. Pessimism is predicting a bust no matter who a player is. Some people were anti-Vitters a long time ago, not knowing whether or not the Cubs would draft him. And there were a few names people wanted with the 2nd pick and the Cubs went in a completely different direction. That's it.

[Guest]

Goonsey isn't bashing the picks, though. He's noticing a potential pattern in Wilkin's draft philosphy.

 

And even those who are bashing the pick have plenty cause for concern. The Cubs don't do well developing players (or, as Bruce said, development is less important than ceiling/talent), so why not take the guys with the highest ceiling possible instead of "safe" picks?

First - I wasn't singling out goony with my comment.

 

Second - if you're saying that our development org stinks, taking the high risk/reward players that need a lot of development is exactly the wrong strategy to take.

[RichHillIsABeast]

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.

 

How is Samardzija a safe pick? Large ML contract for an extremely raw player is a huge risk. Wilken had the money last year (and doesn't this year - grrrrrr).

 

Colvin's hitting for average consistently. I have no idea if he's been told to boost his walk totals. Until he tries and fails at that, I could care less about his k/bb ratio.

 

You want us to draft more Ryan Harveys and Brian Dopiraks? There are some high ceiling picks for you.

[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, which in some cases was the first posters had even read about him. That is pessimism. I make no argument about pessimism regarding any other moves except on a per item basis.

 

That is not pessimism, that is expressing a reaction to the first news you see. If the first stuff we saw was great, we'd have been much more positive.

 

Your labeling of people as pessmists is just flat out ignorant. If people are expecting/wanting one thing, and they see something different, their first reaction is never going to be oh great this is awesome. Pessimism is predicting a bust no matter who a player is. Some people were anti-Vitters a long time ago, not knowing whether or not the Cubs would draft him. And there were a few names people wanted with the 2nd pick and the Cubs went in a completely different direction. That's it.

 

That is actually basically what I said the deal was in the first place, if you go back and read the rest of my post that you only quoted the first sentence of. We just disagree on what to call it. I understand the dissappointment with the picks, I just think the gut reaction was a little more despairing than was warranted, that's all.

[USSoccer]

Goonsey isn't bashing the picks, though. He's noticing a potential pattern in Wilkin's draft philosphy.

 

And even those who are bashing the pick have plenty cause for concern. The Cubs don't do well developing players (or, as Bruce said, development is less important than ceiling/talent), so why not take the guys with the highest ceiling possible instead of "safe" picks?

 

That's not what they're bashing about, though.

 

What else do people have to go on other than scouting reports combined with a history of ineptitude when it comes to position players?

 

People should be ok with others making snap judgements based on the information at hand, and not freak out and cry "In Wilken We Trust" in response, and act like concern isn't warranted.

[jersey cubs fan]

How is Samardzija a safe pick? Large ML contract for an extremely raw player is a huge risk. Wilken had the money last year (and doesn't this year - grrrrrr).

 

He's not safe financially, I just think he's a relatively safe bet in the way that a lot of people have talked about him being a likely reliever.

 

Colvin's hitting for average consistently. I have no idea if he's been told to boost his walk totals. Until he tries and fails at that, I could care less about his k/bb ratio.

 

You want us to draft more Ryan Harveys and Brian Dopiraks? There are some high ceiling picks for you.

 

Not caring about his k/bb is foolish. It matters, no matter whether the Cubs have told him to work on it (which probably isn't the case).

 

I never said I wanted Harveys and Dopiraks. I said it looks like Wilken is drafting guys who are good bets to make the majors, but not necessarily good bets to be stars. I haven't graded this draft. I wasn't pining for some high school kid with huge batting practice power. If anything I want to stay clear of that type of high risk high reward player. What I was doing is analyzing Wilken's picks.

[1908]

People should be ok with others making snap judgements based on the information at hand, and not freak out and cry "In Wilken We Trust" in response, and act like concern isn't warranted.

Ah, so snap judgements are ok in one instance, but not in the other?

[Guest]

Goonsey isn't bashing the picks, though. He's noticing a potential pattern in Wilkin's draft philosphy.

 

And even those who are bashing the pick have plenty cause for concern. The Cubs don't do well developing players (or, as Bruce said, development is less important than ceiling/talent), so why not take the guys with the highest ceiling possible instead of "safe" picks?

 

That's not what they're bashing about, though.

 

What else do people have to go on other than scouting reports combined with a history of ineptitude when it comes to position players?

 

People should be ok with others making snap judgements based on the information at hand, and not freak out and cry "In Wilken We Trust" in response, and act like concern isn't warranted.

I guess what I'm complaining about is the lack of consistency in rationale. Scouts are in love with Vitters, but people wanted Wieters because he put up big numbers in a major college conference.

 

But people are complaining about Donaldson instead of Burgess because the scouts aren't raving even though he put up nearly as big numbers in another major college conference (probably even a tougher one).

 

Perhaps I made my post too emotional with the word "bashing", but I was really just complaining about the apparent inconsistency in rationale being used for judgement.

[Guest]

Goonsey isn't bashing the picks, though. He's noticing a potential pattern in Wilkin's draft philosphy.

 

And even those who are bashing the pick have plenty cause for concern. The Cubs don't do well developing players (or, as Bruce said, development is less important than ceiling/talent), so why not take the guys with the highest ceiling possible instead of "safe" picks?

 

That's not what they're bashing about, though.

 

What else do people have to go on other than scouting reports combined with a history of ineptitude when it comes to position players?

 

People should be ok with others making snap judgements based on the information at hand, and not freak out and cry "In Wilken We Trust" in response, and act like concern isn't warranted.

 

I point to his stat line in a good conference (not something you want to rely on completely, but hey, it looks like he's a good hitter), his scouting reports weren't bad (hell, check out the one Ping Hitter posted - sounds like a great pick from that report) and he was expected to go around where the Cubs picked him.

[Guest]

Wow, rereading that post made me realize how redundant I was.

 

Wow, rereading that post made me realize how redundant I was.

[Sarcastic]

Goonsey isn't bashing the picks, though. He's noticing a potential pattern in Wilkin's draft philosphy.

 

And even those who are bashing the pick have plenty cause for concern. The Cubs don't do well developing players (or, as Bruce said, development is less important than ceiling/talent), so why not take the guys with the highest ceiling possible instead of "safe" picks?

 

That's not what they're bashing about, though.

 

What else do people have to go on other than scouting reports combined with a history of ineptitude when it comes to position players?

 

People should be ok with others making snap judgements based on the information at hand, and not freak out and cry "In Wilken We Trust" in response, and act like concern isn't warranted.

I guess what I'm complaining about is the lack of consistency in rationale. Scouts are in love with Vitters, but people wanted Wieters because he put up big numbers in a major college conference.

 

But people are complaining about Donaldson instead of Burgess because the scouts aren't raving even though he put up nearly as big numbers in another major college conference (probably even a tougher one).

 

Perhaps I made my post too emotional with the word "bashing", but I was really just complaining about the apparent inconsistency in rationale being used for judgement.

 

There's definitely a rationale. People want the players that were the concensus best picks in the media, or the players they had chosen to follow, for one reason or another. We didn't get them. So people are disappointed. That isn't necessarily the best rationale, but it is a rationale.

[nilodnayr]

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.

 

While stat wise Weiters and Donaldson appear equal, I think people are reacting to reports of a looped swing that will need to be altered to hit better pitching. Any time a significant change in batting stance/approach is needed you run the risk of a flame out. Thats what worries me. I don't think its two faced whatsoever to have wanted Weiters and not be a fan of Donaldson based on the little change that Weiters will have to make to hit big league pitching and the major change Donaldson will have to make (according to scouting reports).

 

Defensively while there is some question as to whether Weiters will be able to stick behind the plate, there appears to be more questions about Donaldsons arm and the fact that he is newly converted. Again the stats don't show an issue as hes gunned down more than his fare share of runners.

 

If anything the passing of Weiters and the taking of Donaldson appears to be a Bean-esque move. Passing up the hype to take a similar player statwise with a lower pick. While I'm a fan of most of Beans moves on the ML club and high minors, I am not a fan of his drafting technique at all and proof in the pudding, the Moneyball draft has been a relative failure. Guys like Wilken, Mike Rizzo, and Logan White have proven much much better by doing the opposte of Bean.

[USSoccer]

Goonsey isn't bashing the picks, though. He's noticing a potential pattern in Wilkin's draft philosphy.

 

And even those who are bashing the pick have plenty cause for concern. The Cubs don't do well developing players (or, as Bruce said, development is less important than ceiling/talent), so why not take the guys with the highest ceiling possible instead of "safe" picks?

First - I wasn't singling out goony with my comment.

 

Second - if you're saying that our development org stinks, taking the high risk/reward players that need a lot of development is exactly the wrong strategy to take.

 

I know you didn't single him out specifically, but his thought in Wilken's drafts so far I thought was interesting.

 

I don't know that all high ceiling guys are high risk/reward types, but I'm not exactly an expert on baseball's draft. However, wouldn't high ceiling guys also presumably have higher floors than a "safe" pick would?

[USSoccer]

People should be ok with others making snap judgements based on the information at hand, and not freak out and cry "In Wilken We Trust" in response, and act like concern isn't warranted.

Ah, so snap judgements are ok in one instance, but not in the other?

 

No, what I'm saying is that it's one thing to be critical of a draft pick based on the information at hand, but it's another thing to be critical of someone who's being critical, just because they are being critical.

 

 

EDIT: I shouldn't post at work. I make no sense and my arguments are generally crap.

Edited June 7, 2007 by USSoccer

[RichHillIsABeast]

How is Samardzija a safe pick? Large ML contract for an extremely raw player is a huge risk. Wilken had the money last year (and doesn't this year - grrrrrr).

 

He's not safe financially, I just think he's a relatively safe bet in the way that a lot of people have talked about him being a likely reliever.

 

Colvin's hitting for average consistently. I have no idea if he's been told to boost his walk totals. Until he tries and fails at that, I could care less about his k/bb ratio.

 

You want us to draft more Ryan Harveys and Brian Dopiraks? There are some high ceiling picks for you.

 

Not caring about his k/bb is foolish. It matters, no matter whether the Cubs have told him to work on it (which probably isn't the case).

 

I never said I wanted Harveys and Dopiraks. I said it looks like Wilken is drafting guys who are good bets to make the majors, but not necessarily good bets to be stars. I haven't graded this draft. I wasn't pining for some high school kid with huge batting practice power. If anything I want to stay clear of that type of high risk high reward player. What I was doing is analyzing Wilken's picks.

 

No, you were ragging on the picks from one draft one year ago. Look at Wilken's draft record. He takes high reward players. You haven't mentioned one of Wilken's picks other than in connection with the Cubs.

 

Good bets to be stars? And which picks were available at the Cubs spots that are these surefire studs? And how are we supposed to sign them if we're restricted to slot money?

[Guest]

Goonsey isn't bashing the picks, though. He's noticing a potential pattern in Wilkin's draft philosphy.

 

And even those who are bashing the pick have plenty cause for concern. The Cubs don't do well developing players (or, as Bruce said, development is less important than ceiling/talent), so why not take the guys with the highest ceiling possible instead of "safe" picks?

First - I wasn't singling out goony with my comment.

 

Second - if you're saying that our development org stinks, taking the high risk/reward players that need a lot of development is exactly the wrong strategy to take.

 

I know you didn't single him out specifically, but his thought in Wilken's drafts so far I thought was interesting.

 

I don't know that all high ceiling guys are high risk/reward types, but I'm not exactly an expert on baseball's draft. However, wouldn't high ceiling guys also presumably have higher floors than a "safe" pick would?

I think Samardzija is a very high ceiling guy -- but he's got to add a change and more consistency with his slider. Which means he's not tremendously likely to reach that high ceiling. But what I saw in spring training is a guy who can be a darned fine reliever in a very short timeframe.

 

I also disagree with the assessment on Colvin's ceiling. His performance so far hasn't been thrilling to anyone, but he's moving fairly fast and is holding his own -- hence Goony's take on him being a pretty "safe" pick. But I think he's still filling out his frame and has a slight chance to be a guy who blossoms into an all-star level player. He's a guy that got significantly better later on in college. He's also playing better this year than last year even though he skipped a level.

 

Vitters was rated by many as the best bat in the draft for a reason - he's got the potential be be very good at every phase of hitting. If that's not a high ceiling, I don't know what is.

 

As for your last question - Let me introduce you to Brian Dopirak and Ryan Harvey. Two very high ceiling hitters with abysmal floors. That Wilken has been able to identify some hitters with decent floors and still plenty of upside should be commended.

[Mizzou]

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.

It might have something to do with the fact that some people question every single move.

[CoolHandLuke]

third round selection:

 

 

114. Tony Thomas, 2b

School: Florida State. Class: Jr.

B-T: R-R. Ht.: 5-10. Wt.: 180. Birthdate: 7/10/86.

Scouting Report: Few players experienced such a drastic turnaround in such a short span as Thomas. He batted .240 and struck out 75 times in 2005, the second-most strikeouts in Division I, and piled up 66 more as a sophomore. This year, Thomas led the nation in hits (97) and doubles (28), ranked second in on-base percentage (.542) and third in average (.449). He had as many walks as strikeouts (36), and had gone from a non-prospect to a potential top 100 talent. He opened his stance, which has allowed him to see pitches a split-second earlier and says that has been the key to his improvement. His swing plane is flat and his up-the-middle approach isn't conducive for power, but he has bat speed and good barrel awareness. Thomas is a below-average defender with a below-average arm, though he's an average runner. Given his improvement at the plate, it's conceivable he plays his way into an adequate second baseman, which would enhance his value.

 

AVG AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI SB

.449 216 78 97 28 6 10 42 26

Edited June 7, 2007 by CoolHandLuke

[UK1679666180]

Thomas was not an unknown before the 2007 season; he’s been Florida State ’s starting second baseman since day 1 of his freshman year and has shown his tools and athletic ability frequently—but never consistently. But no one could have predicted Thomas’ breakout junior season that has cast him into National player of the year consideration. Thomas was hitting .448-9-40 with 28 doubles, 77 runs and 24 steals through May 12, after not hitting over .300 his first two seasons. The big difference can be seen in Thomas strikeouts, which have gone from 75 as a freshman to 66 as a sophomore to only 33 in 2007. Thomas credits swing adjustments for his surge and scouts say that he’s much shorter to the ball this year and more consistent in his approach. The extra-base power is real and should remain consistent at the professional level, too. The rest of Thomas’ athletic package is worthy of top round selection. He’s a 6.7 runner with athletic quickness and balance, which gives him plenty of range at second base.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

His line this year: .430/.522/.733/1.255, 43 BB/39 K, 31/36 SB

 

Conference line(ACC): .374/.500/.740/1.240, 25 BB/21 K, 12/16 SB

[Guest]

Interesting trend so far:

 

three hitters selected. Vitters is rated as having the second best plate discipline in the draft amongst high school hitters. Both college hitters selected had outstanding OBP's and IsoD's.

 

could the Cubs finally be learning the value of picking people with plate discipline?