2010 Cubs Picks & Signings Thread

[Outshined_One]

After going through this thread and doing some research, some general comments...

 

First of all, the absolute worst reason for a team to draft someone is because he might not be there when that team picks again. You should draft the #1 guy on your board, regardless of what other teams might think of him. Based on what I've seen from the Cubs in recent years, they seem to have adopted that philosophy. They may have an unorthodox approach to determining who the #1 overall player is, but they will select that guy. I really do think that Simpson was the #1 guy on the Cubs' board based on some combination of his current talent, ceiling, and signability.

 

The good news with Simpson is, if he were two inches taller or if he went to a better school, it sounds like he would have been a much more highly regarded prospect. If he legitimately has four pitches that could be above average to plus and he could handle the starter's workload, then he is absolutely worth the #16 pick. Yeah, compared to some of the available players, it was disappointing to see the Cubs select him over guys like O'Connor and Allie. However, the Cubs didn't select a guy with a low ceiling. He's actually quite intriguing. If the Cubs selected him in the second or third, I would have loved the pick.

 

The potential bad news with Simpson is what he might represent as far as spending in the draft is concerned. I'm guessing the Cubs will be able to sign him below MLB's slot recommendation. So, the major question question is whether the Cubs are under tight budgetary restrictions, as Tim mentioned above. If this is like the Pirates taking Tony Sanchez last year so they could hand out six and seven figure bonuses to sign high-end guys who dropped because of strong college commitments, this pick is wholly justifiable. If, instead, the Cubs proceed to select a bunch of guys who will sign at or below slot from here on out, then this pick will be quite the disappointment.

 

I'm willing to take a wait and see approach with Simpson. Assuming he signs soon, we should get a good handle on what he has to offer when Boise starts its season.

[cubsfan5150]

IMO the worst part about this pick is that it helped allow Zack Cox to slide all the way to the Cards at 25... I don't see that being good for the Cubs.

[wvcbxl]

So Wilken pulls another head-scratcher on the Cubs fans (the ones that care about the draft anyway). I know he has his track record speaking for him, but this one really came out of nowhere. What it means may only become clear after the final rounds; we'll have to wait and see.

[Guest]

IMO the worst part about this pick is that it helped allow Zack Cox to slide all the way to the Cards at 25... I don't see that being good for the Cubs.

 

Zack Cox is sounding more and more like a homeless man's Kevin Kouzmanoff, I'm not overly worried about that.

[Guest]

First of all, the absolute worst reason for a team to draft someone is because he might not be there when that team picks again. You should draft the #1 guy on your board, regardless of what other teams might think of him.

 

These two statements don't really work together in the context of the Simpson pick. In the game theory of the draft, it can definitely be a great benefit to not draft the #1 guy on your board. What they're saying by drafting him is that they had Simpson rated high enough that:

 

a) he was the best player on the board

b) he was so much better than the #2 guy that it was worth to pass on the high probability that Simpson lasted to the 2nd(or even 3rd) round

 

I'd prefer Wilken taking the #2 guy on the board 150 times out of 10 if it means that there's a strong likelihood that they can end up with their #1 and #2 guys cumulatively. I just find it hard to believe that Simpson rated so highly it wasn't worth that gamble, and that there was a team out there waiting to take him before 67.

[jersey cubs fan]

Why are so many people so willing to assume he was right with colvin? Tyler has been a bad pro for most of his career, and he has a handful of quality pa in selected opportunities this year. Let's give it some time before we just assume it all worked out for the best. Shark is still terrible, bitters has done nothing except convince them to keep promoting him without the numbers to justify the fast track. Cashner looks great but we knew he could relieve, and he hasn't started much. Jackson looks good, but I believe not quite what he was on first impression last year. The cubs have drafted lots of guys who can make the majors but the top of the draft is for impact players, not people you think have a chance to be a starter.

[Guancous]

The cubs have drafted lots of guys who can make the majors but the top of the draft is for impact players, not people you think have a chance to be a starter.

 

Six years of club control for a major league regular is still very, very valuable. It will likely be five years before we fully know the impact of the draft. The Simpson pick left a bad taste in my mouth but it feels better this morning. I can see a team rolling the dice on him in the supplemental round.

 

Hopefully the Cubs will pick some overslot guys later. Otherwise, I will trust that Wilken watched these guys a lot closer than we have.

[KingCubsFan]

First of all, the absolute worst reason for a team to draft someone is because he might not be there when that team picks again. You should draft the #1 guy on your board, regardless of what other teams might think of him.

 

These two statements don't really work together in the context of the Simpson pick. In the game theory of the draft, it can definitely be a great benefit to not draft the #1 guy on your board. What they're saying by drafting him is that they had Simpson rated high enough that:

 

a) he was the best player on the board

b) he was so much better than the #2 guy that it was worth to pass on the high probability that Simpson lasted to the 2nd(or even 3rd) round

 

I'd prefer Wilken taking the #2 guy on the board 150 times out of 10 if it means that there's a strong likelihood that they can end up with their #1 and #2 guys cumulatively. I just find it hard to believe that Simpson rated so highly it wasn't worth that gamble, and that there was a team out there waiting to take him before 67.

From Phil Rogers:

The Cubs were likewise interested in Grandal and Sale before taking Simpson, who they believe would have been taken by the Angels or Astros before the Cubs' second-round pick, 66 overall. "I had it confirmed by a couple of other clubs (that they would have taken him),'' Wilken said, "including one with extra picks that wasn't too far from us (in the draft order). This guy just made sense.''

[Guest]

And I find it especially hard to believe that that is a fact that Wilken could confirm. Did he just call up teams and say "are you gonna take this guy"?

[Ding Dong Johnson]

so has anyone come up with a plausible reason why we picked a kid in the first round that was an early 4th rounder at best? if they're looking for oswalt, then trade for oswalt, don't waste our farm system

Wouldn't trading for Oswalt also "waste" our farm system?

[Ding Dong Johnson]

And I find it especially hard to believe that that is a fact that Wilken could confirm. Did he just call up teams and say "are you gonna take this guy"?

I'm sure they talk to each other, and the conversation probably happened after the fact. If it did actually happen.

[Guest]

And I find it especially hard to believe that that is a fact that Wilken could confirm. Did he just call up teams and say "are you gonna take this guy"?

I'm sure they talk to each other, and the conversation probably happened after the fact. If it did actually happen.

 

That makes more sense, but that still means they're making the pick without that knowledge.

[KingCubsFan]

And I find it especially hard to believe that that is a fact that Wilken could confirm. Did he just call up teams and say "are you gonna take this guy"?

It happens in every other draft, so I don't see why it can't happen in baseball. You see people trade up 1 or 2 spots in the NFL draft every year to steal a player. Those moves aren't based on a hunch.

[Ding Dong Johnson]

And I find it especially hard to believe that that is a fact that Wilken could confirm. Did he just call up teams and say "are you gonna take this guy"?

I'm sure they talk to each other, and the conversation probably happened after the fact. If it did actually happen.

 

That makes more sense, but that still means they're making the pick without that knowledge.

Yeah, the pick at the time was a bit of a head-scratcher. I really hope Wilken knows what he's doing.

[jersey cubs fan]

And I find it especially hard to believe that that is a fact that Wilken could confirm. Did he just call up teams and say "are you gonna take this guy"?

It happens in every other draft, so I don't see why it can't happen in baseball. You see people trade up 1 or 2 spots in the NFL draft every year to steal a player. Those moves aren't based on a hunch.

Every pick ever taken was taken before somebody else had a chance and every team was happy their guy fell to them.

[Guest]

From Phil Rogers:

The Cubs were likewise interested in Grandal and Sale before taking Simpson, who they believe would have been taken by the Angels or Astros before the Cubs' second-round pick, 66 overall. "I had it confirmed by a couple of other clubs (that they would have taken him),'' Wilken said, "including one with extra picks that wasn't too far from us (in the draft order). This guy just made sense.''

 

I would have preferred Sale and the Cubs seeing if they could have gotten Simpson in round 2. That said, Wilken has earned the benefit of the doubt.

[abuck1220]

Why are so many people so willing to assume he was right with colvin? Tyler has been a bad pro for most of his career, and he has a handful of quality pa in selected opportunities this year. Let's give it some time before we just assume it all worked out for the best. Shark is still terrible, bitters has done nothing except convince them to keep promoting him without the numbers to justify the fast track. Cashner looks great but we knew he could relieve, and he hasn't started much. Jackson looks good, but I believe not quite what he was on first impression last year. The cubs have drafted lots of guys who can make the majors but the top of the draft is for impact players, not people you think have a chance to be a starter.

 

yeah, i don't get the "well, i trust wilken, he hasn't let us down so far" line. if his 1st round success stories are a fourth outfielder and a middle reliever, i'm not going to be too wowed.

[tfarks]

I'm disappointed with the pick, but I am warming to the player based on whats come out about him. They got a guy that supposedly wasn't gonna make it to their 2nd pick, so they obviously have a very high grade on this kid. The next several rounds is what will shape my opinion of the draft. There are some guys with signability issues that the Cubs should open the purse strings for. In the MLB draft, unlike other drafts, the 1st round pick is not make or break.

[TruffleShuffle]

i remember alex rios was a guy who people thought was an absolutely terrible pick. the jays selected him 19th overall and then signed him for way below slot, and got ripped pretty soundly for that. granted he's not a superstar, but he's turned out to be a better player than all but five of the top 50 picks, and four of those guys (josh hamilton, josh beckett, barry zito, ben sheets) went ahead of him in the top 10.

 

don't know if this was a good move or not, but wilken's off-the-wall picks have frequently turned out a lot better than people expected.

[Tony Thomas]

Why are so many people so willing to assume he was right with colvin? Tyler has been a bad pro for most of his career, and he has a handful of quality pa in selected opportunities this year. Let's give it some time before we just assume it all worked out for the best. Shark is still terrible, bitters has done nothing except convince them to keep promoting him without the numbers to justify the fast track. Cashner looks great but we knew he could relieve, and he hasn't started much. Jackson looks good, but I believe not quite what he was on first impression last year. The cubs have drafted lots of guys who can make the majors but the top of the draft is for impact players, not people you think have a chance to be a starter.

 

yeah, i don't get the "well, i trust wilken, he hasn't let us down so far" line. if his 1st round success stories are a fourth outfielder and a middle reliever, i'm not going to be too wowed.

Tyler Colvin could and should be starting and Cashner is about to become are setup man and he's only been up for a week. And Brett Jackson is already one of our better prospects. I would say he's done a pretty good job so far.

[jersey cubs fan]

i remember alex rios was a guy who people thought was an absolutely terrible pick. the jays selected him 19th overall and then signed him for way below slot, and got ripped pretty soundly for that. granted he's not a superstar, but he's turned out to be a better player than all but five of the top 50 picks, and four of those guys (josh hamilton, josh beckett, barry zito, ben sheets) went ahead of him in the top 10.

 

don't know if this was a good move or not, but wilken's off-the-wall picks have frequently turned out a lot better than people expected.

 

alex rios has had a very unspectaculiar career, no?

[jersey cubs fan]

Why are so many people so willing to assume he was right with colvin? Tyler has been a bad pro for most of his career, and he has a handful of quality pa in selected opportunities this year. Let's give it some time before we just assume it all worked out for the best. Shark is still terrible, bitters has done nothing except convince them to keep promoting him without the numbers to justify the fast track. Cashner looks great but we knew he could relieve, and he hasn't started much. Jackson looks good, but I believe not quite what he was on first impression last year. The cubs have drafted lots of guys who can make the majors but the top of the draft is for impact players, not people you think have a chance to be a starter.

 

yeah, i don't get the "well, i trust wilken, he hasn't let us down so far" line. if his 1st round success stories are a fourth outfielder and a middle reliever, i'm not going to be too wowed.

Tyler Colvin could and should be starting and Cashner is about to become are setup man and he's only been up for a week. And Brett Jackson is already one of our better prospects. I would say he's done a pretty good job so far.

 

could and should is meaningless. He's been a bad pro, and his success has been very limited. He could very easily be exposed if he starts. and first round picks should not be setup men.

[dew1679666265]

and first round picks should not be setup men.

 

Being a setup man at 23 in his second full season in the pros is a bad thing?

[abuck1220]

and being a "top prospect" when you're the most recent 1st round pick isn't all that impressive either...especially in the cubs' system.

[dew1679666265]

and being a "top prospect" when you're the most recent 1st round pick isn't all that impressive either...especially in the cubs' system.

 

I think the arguments being made are more that the recent 1st rounders by Wilken are showing quite a bit of promise moreso than they are sure thing stars. Cashner is in a key bullpen role in his second full professional season at 23 years old and Brett Jackson has a near .400 OBP in high A at 21 years old.