2007 Draft Picks who have signed

[TruffleShuffle]

so we could've had wieters for less than $3M more than vitters? excuse me while i go stab myself in the face.

 

The Cubs believed Wieters would have commanded a major league contract and they weren't willing to give him that - it was one of the main reasons they passed on him.

 

but he didn't command a major league contract. I don't really care what the reason is, the Cubs passed on the best hitter in the draft, and that pisses me off.

 

It's not like they passed on a Prior for Brazleton. Vitters wasn't rated much lower than Wieters, and was rated as better by some.

 

that's fine... those "some" are wrong though

[LetsPlayTwo]

 

that's fine... those "some" are wrong though

 

Maybe it was a "need" thing. We already have a ML-ready prospect in Soto, while we might need a replacement for A-Ram in several years. This way, we don't pay a Major League contract to a prospect that might be blocked and we can leisurely develop a prospect to replace a future need. It's a rather longsighted move, which is slightly surprising.

[Guest]

MLB teams do not draft to need. Especially with the #3 spot in the draft.

[wvcbxl]

that's fine... those "some" are wrong though

 

We're a few years away from passing judgment on that one.

[badnews]

I disagree about not drafting for need. If the best player in the draft was another toolsy high school outfielder, yeah, the Devil Rays could be faulted for going there. Anyway, I think Wieters was universally rated better than Vitters anyway. The Cubs, not being good at developing major league talent, should've taken the guy closer to getting to the majors instead of the raw high schooler they have far less of a chance of developing. You can argue if you like, but the argument about not developing an impact position player for more than a decade still stands for me. Plus everyone says Vitters is heading to the outfield, that means between Soriano, Pie, Colvin, and anybody else who happens to come around there's going to be a crunch.

 

As for Soto, nobody projects him as a starter.

[Guest]

I disagree about not drafting for need. If the best player in the draft was another toolsy high school outfielder, yeah, the Devil Rays could be faulted for going there. Anyway, I think Wieters was universally rated better than Vitters anyway. The Cubs, not being good at developing major league talent, should've taken the guy closer to getting to the majors instead of the raw high schooler they have far less of a chance of developing. You can argue if you like, but the argument about not developing an impact position player for more than a decade still stands for me. Plus everyone says Vitters is heading to the outfield, that means between Soriano, Pie, Colvin, and anybody else who happens to come around there's going to be a crunch.

 

As for Soto, nobody projects him as a starter.

Where to start...

 

1) I've yet to see anyone (that gets paid for writing about such things, anyway) say that it's a sure thing Vitters can't stay at 3B. Everything I've seen says that he's currently rough defensively, but that he has the capability to be an average or better defender there. This is usually followed by the statement that nearly no 17 year olds are where they need to be defensively.

 

2) You say you'd take the more advanced hitter because the Cubs can't develop hitters (why not go for a pitcher, then, btw). But then you say that there will be two homegrown hitters blocking Vitters at a position you say he'll have to switch to. So...you're saying he's going to be blocked by position players we develop even though we can't develop position players. Something seems faulty with that logic.

[TruffleShuffle]

I disagree about not drafting for need. If the best player in the draft was another toolsy high school outfielder, yeah, the Devil Rays could be faulted for going there. Anyway, I think Wieters was universally rated better than Vitters anyway. The Cubs, not being good at developing major league talent, should've taken the guy closer to getting to the majors instead of the raw high schooler they have far less of a chance of developing. You can argue if you like, but the argument about not developing an impact position player for more than a decade still stands for me. Plus everyone says Vitters is heading to the outfield, that means between Soriano, Pie, Colvin, and anybody else who happens to come around there's going to be a crunch.

 

I agree with most of what you've written, but this part I disagree with... a lot of people think he'll at least an average-fielding third baseman. I very much do agree with the argument that the Cubs can't be trusted to develop a high school draftee, given their lack of success with Montanez, Harvey, Dopirak... going back to Corey Patterson actually. And, regardless of the Cubs ineptitude of developing position players, Vitters has a higher bust potential than a polished hitter like Wieters.

 

 

As for Soto, nobody projects him as a starter.

 

That was last year... the guys is destroying the PCL this year, so there's a good chance that evaluations of him have changed.

[LetsPlayTwo]

MLB teams do not draft to need. Especially with the #3 spot in the draft.

 

I know, but it certainly is icing on the cake that Vitters can potentially fill a spot we'll need down the road.

[Electron Blue]

MLB teams do not draft to need. Especially with the #3 spot in the draft.

 

I know, but it certainly is icing on the cake that Vitters can potentially fill a spot we'll need down the road.

 

 

Sure, but that's a very different statement

[Guest]

MLB teams do not draft to need. Especially with the #3 spot in the draft.

 

I know, but it certainly is icing on the cake that Vitters can potentially fill a spot we'll need down the road.

Other than Soriano, there's no player on the Cubs I'd give better than a 50% chance of still being on the team (let alone at the same position) in four years.

 

Drafting for need in baseball just doesn't make sense.

[LetsPlayTwo]

Other than Soriano, there's no player on the Cubs I'd give better than a 50% chance of still being on the team (let alone at the same position) in four years.

 

Drafting for need in baseball just doesn't make sense.

 

Right. I know the Cubs selected him primarily because he was the best available player at their draft slot and not out of need. It's an added bonus that he plays a position that the Cubs have historically had trouble filling. I'm not saying it was the best reason to draft him, just that it's nice.

[SouthSideRyan]

I'm sketchy on Montanez, but Harvey and Dope's strengths as hitters were raw power, they were never the type of hitters that Vitters is. The talk about not developing a hitter for the past 20 years isn't really indicative of a lot because there's little sense in talking about the developmental history of the organization rather than the guys actually down there doing the developing. I'm not saying I think we have the right coaches in the system to develop a high school hitter, but I'm also not ready to say take the most polished hitter when you can because there's no way our system can get anything out of a guy from high school.

[sporrer17]

I disagree about not drafting for need. If the best player in the draft was another toolsy high school outfielder, yeah, the Devil Rays could be faulted for going there. Anyway, I think Wieters was universally rated better than Vitters anyway. The Cubs, not being good at developing major league talent, should've taken the guy closer to getting to the majors instead of the raw high schooler they have far less of a chance of developing. You can argue if you like, but the argument about not developing an impact position player for more than a decade still stands for me. Plus everyone says Vitters is heading to the outfield, that means between Soriano, Pie, Colvin, and anybody else who happens to come around there's going to be a crunch.

 

As for Soto, nobody projects him as a starter.

 

I don't really know where to start with this post. Need plays absolutely no role in drafting players, outside of the position/pitching holes. Obviously if a team is stacked with position players, they should focus on pitching, and vice versa.

 

Wieters may have been considered a better player by some or even most, but it was not universal. I know Vitters is a high schooler, but to say he's raw isn't terribly fair. He was ranked as the most advanced high school bat available and closest to the bigs. He doesn't fit the mold that usually take a while to progress, he's not all power or all average, he's a nice mixture of the two.

 

Plus, Vitters will stick at 3b most likely...if not, he'll probably be hitting the bigs around the time we're looking for a Derrek Lee replacement...I think he'll stick at 3b personally.

 

Oh, and purely by defense and power, Soto has starter potential. Nevermind the fact that he draws walks and has hit for a very good average this season.

[YearofDaCubs]

Vitters was almost taken #2 overall by the Royals, there was some talk that we got lucky getting him at #3 due to Moustakas rising on the charts. I think in the Cubs eyes they drafted the best player left on the board and to them it was Vitters. If the Cubs scouts and Hendry really wanted Wieters he probably would have been drafted by us.

[TruffleShuffle]

Vitters was almost taken #2 overall by the Royals, there was some talk that we got lucky getting him at #3 due to Moustakas rising on the charts. I think in the Cubs eyes they drafted the best player left on the board and to them it was Vitters. If the Cubs scouts and Hendry really wanted Wieters he probably would have been drafted by us.

 

You say this as if it's a good thing, but given the Cubs ineptitude in identifying talent in previous years, I'm not willing to give them and their scouts the benefit of the doubt.

[YearofDaCubs]

Vitters was almost taken #2 overall by the Royals, there was some talk that we got lucky getting him at #3 due to Moustakas rising on the charts. I think in the Cubs eyes they drafted the best player left on the board and to them it was Vitters. If the Cubs scouts and Hendry really wanted Wieters he probably would have been drafted by us.

 

You say this as if it's a good thing, but given the Cubs ineptitude in identifying talent in previous years, I'm not willing to give them and their scouts the benefit of the doubt.

I'm sure their scouts know more than us, and that said, they do have a new scout than from previous years.

[TruffleShuffle]

Vitters was almost taken #2 overall by the Royals, there was some talk that we got lucky getting him at #3 due to Moustakas rising on the charts. I think in the Cubs eyes they drafted the best player left on the board and to them it was Vitters. If the Cubs scouts and Hendry really wanted Wieters he probably would have been drafted by us.

 

You say this as if it's a good thing, but given the Cubs ineptitude in identifying talent in previous years, I'm not willing to give them and their scouts the benefit of the doubt.

I'm sure their scouts know more than us

 

I bet I could do just as good a job of never developing a good position player.

[YearofDaCubs]

Vitters was almost taken #2 overall by the Royals, there was some talk that we got lucky getting him at #3 due to Moustakas rising on the charts. I think in the Cubs eyes they drafted the best player left on the board and to them it was Vitters. If the Cubs scouts and Hendry really wanted Wieters he probably would have been drafted by us.

 

You say this as if it's a good thing, but given the Cubs ineptitude in identifying talent in previous years, I'm not willing to give them and their scouts the benefit of the doubt.

I'm sure their scouts know more than us

 

I bet I could do just as good a job of never developing a good position player.

I'm sure you could. Eventually, the Cubs will have to get it right..right? Sure, they've sucked at developing offensive talent in the past, but that's the past, let's see how things work out in the future.

[badnews]

Before Pie's prospect status expired, the team's two best position players were in the outfield, the other being Colvin (unless there are actually Eric Patterson believers on here... not me). Add into that Soriano is going to be there for a long time, if Vitters goes to the outfield, it's not the best fit.

 

Like the Brewers and Matt LaPorta. He was probably the best/quickest to move bat available at that spot. But come on. Who needs to draft for a 1b/DH/(LF at best) type that high? That's where this idea of not drafting for need irks me. That kind of talent you can usually find when somebody else has a prospect blocked or with a Jack Cust guy floating around.

[badnews]

I don't really know where to start with this post. Need plays absolutely no role in drafting players, outside of the position/pitching holes. Obviously if a team is stacked with position players, they should focus on pitching, and vice versa.

 

That sounds like a contradiction to me. Like saying "I absolutely never eat meat, except beef, chicken, turkey, pork, and fish."

 

Oh, and purely by defense and power, Soto has starter potential. Nevermind the fact that he draws walks and has hit for a very good average this season.

 

Who puts that much stock in Iowa stats this year? Even Buck Coats looks good. Buck Coats is not good. Ronny Cedeno looked like A-Rod. I'm really dubious of Soto because he's striking out in over 24% of his ABs. That's poison. We've seen this time and time again, a guy comes up to AAA and hits like a madman but strikes out too much and flops in the big leagues. And then people wonder where guys like Dallas McPherson went wrong. I just don't buy the PCL "Hey, look at me, my BABIP is like .430, that's totally going to hold up in the major leagues." This was the same thing as so many guys, look at Dubois. It's not like Soto is 3 years younger than Dubois was either. And he's repeated AAA, and was never a great hitter before AAA, just like Cedeno. Not to mention all of the trade publications I've seen tab him as a backup, even more recently.

 

As for the first reply to my post, before Pie's prospect status expired, our two best position player prospects were outfielders (Pie and Colvin, I hope nobody actually believes in E-Pat). Soriano will be here forever. So if Vitters moves to the outfield, it's not as big of a help as it could be. The Brewers drafted LaPorta because he was the best/most ready bat at that point, but that's the kind of move I hate, drafting a 1b/DH(LF if he's lucky) type of guy when you get those guys rather easily from other teams who have blocked prospects or grab a Cust type.

 

On Baseball America's draft prospect tracker, they had Wieters ranked above Vitters, so I think you can say the Cubs did not take the best talent on the board. Furthermore, there's nobody who would say Porcello was not a better talent than Vitters. Somebody tries to argue that, it's simply not going to work. So they didn't.

[Illini Iceman]

I don't really know where to start with this post. Need plays absolutely no role in drafting players, outside of the position/pitching holes. Obviously if a team is stacked with position players, they should focus on pitching, and vice versa.

 

That sounds like a contradiction to me. Like saying "I absolutely never eat meat, except beef, chicken, turkey, pork, and fish."

 

Oh, and purely by defense and power, Soto has starter potential. Nevermind the fact that he draws walks and has hit for a very good average this season.

 

Who puts that much stock in Iowa stats this year? Even Buck Coats looks good. Buck Coats is not good. Ronny Cedeno looked like A-Rod. I'm really dubious of Soto because he's striking out in over 24% of his ABs. That's poison. We've seen this time and time again, a guy comes up to AAA and hits like a madman but strikes out too much and flops in the big leagues. And then people wonder where guys like Dallas McPherson went wrong. I just don't buy the PCL "Hey, look at me, my BABIP is like .430, that's totally going to hold up in the major leagues." This was the same thing as so many guys, look at Dubois. It's not like Soto is 3 years younger than Dubois was either. And he's repeated AAA, and was never a great hitter before AAA, just like Cedeno. Not to mention all of the trade publications I've seen tab him as a backup, even more recently.

 

As for the first reply to my post, before Pie's prospect status expired, our two best position player prospects were outfielders (Pie and Colvin, I hope nobody actually believes in E-Pat). Soriano will be here forever. So if Vitters moves to the outfield, it's not as big of a help as it could be. The Brewers drafted LaPorta because he was the best/most ready bat at that point, but that's the kind of move I hate, drafting a 1b/DH(LF if he's lucky) type of guy when you get those guys rather easily from other teams who have blocked prospects or grab a Cust type.

 

On Baseball America's draft prospect tracker, they had Wieters ranked above Vitters, so I think you can say the Cubs did not take the best talent on the board. Furthermore, there's nobody who would say Porcello was not a better talent than Vitters. Somebody tries to argue that, it's simply not going to work. So they didn't.

 

If the BA draft prospect tracker had Wieters higher it must be true. Wilkens copy must have gotten lost in the mail.

[TruffleShuffle]

I'm really dubious of Soto because he's striking out in over 24% of his ABs.

 

no he's not.

[JeffH]

I'm really dubious of Soto because he's striking out in over 24% of his ABs.

 

no he's not.

 

He's not?

[CubColtPacer]

I'm really dubious of Soto because he's striking out in over 24% of his ABs.

 

no he's not.

 

He is at a 24.3% strikeout rate on the season. That concerns me as well-I didn't realize he was striking out nearly that much.

[TruffleShuffle]

I'm really dubious of Soto because he's striking out in over 24% of his ABs.

 

no he's not.

 

He's not?

 

okay I misread badnews' post. But I don't like K/AB... I prefer K/PA.