Minor League Discussion & Boxes 5-22-12

[PriortoTheoIhadWood]

I'm not going to give Wilken a pass here at all. To me, the record speaks on it's own. And that's what we have to go off of. But, I do wonder if JH helped out in all of this a little too much. We typically would only be good for one solid overslot guy and they always would hang their hat on how many "major leaguers" are getting produced. Even if it were role players galore. The philosophy seemed to be a mixture of safe and cheap, for the most part. Whether it was more Wilken or Hendry is irrelevant to me honestly. But in the end, since Wilken's the scouting director. I put the blame on him. Because if he didn't agree with the philosophy, he didn't have to be here.

 

What if it was more Trib like its consistently reported?

 

I think some of you guys underrate the role of ownership...Just like Ricketts is a major part of the overhaul taking place right now, I think the Trib had a big hand in the draft (and FA -specifically Soriano's contract) as they were on the way out.

 

Personally, I like Wilken.

[toonsterwu]

I should add ... I don't like or hate Wilken. I just call it by how I feel at the time. Like I said, with hindsight, yes, the Wilken era doesn't look so hot right now (06 has had, I think, 4 guys reach the bigs (Clevenger, Parker, Samardzija, Colvin), with Samardzija as the darkhorse to become really good, and with Marcus Hatley as a 5th guy who might see the bigs; 07, which was initially thought of as a better draft than 06, IIRC, looks ugly right now, with 4 guys reach the bigs (not counting Cashner, since he didnt sign), but none of them look likely to be impact players (Guyer, Barney, Donaldson, Russell) with Vitters likely to see the bigs, but what type of quality is yet to be determined).

 

One last comment on 2006, and why I didn't have a big issue with the Colvin pick then - who did people prefer? Hindsight makes it seem likely that, with the money they had allocated for Samardzija, they weren't going to take a prep pick there BUT ... let's pretend that the Shark situation didn't impact this. Snider? I don't recall being a huge Snider fan. There were some scouts then chirping about how Colvin might be able to stick in CF. That sounded intriguing enough to me that I don't recall being someone that wanted Snider a lot more than Colvin. I don't recall being too hot for Marrero/Parmalee. Kyle Drabek might've been someone I preferred over Colvin. Actually, and my memory is pretty shoddy on how I really felt then, but I wouldn't be surprised if I liked Sinkbeil and Antonelli. I was never huge on Kennedy in his time in the Yankees minors, so I'll assume I wasn't huge on him that draft year, but I don't recall. Considering Colvin was likely to go in the 20's, and considering the other options out there, I just didn't have a big issue with the pick then.

 

I sure wish we could've gotten Kershaw ... but that wasn't going to happen.

[rawaction]

On Wilken -

 

Hindsight is making his tenure look awfully ... bad. But, hindsight is always perfect. I still stick with what I thought about each draft, particularly now that we know how limited he was financially. I

 

a) Never faulted him for the 2006 draft. Colvin seemed to be certain to be gone by the late first. Okay, he took a gamble. Also, Samardzija may have influenced the decision to take said gamble, as a lot of people had doubts he would go pro, but the Cubs probably knew.

 

b) Liked the 2007 draft enough. Sure, I would've liked Wieters, but Vitters was well-regarded. Liked the Donaldson pick. And I would've liked a bit more upside early. The lack of arms in the draft bothered me.

 

There's a whole bunch of ridiculousness here. First off, who cares if Colvin may have been gone 30 picks later, that is not reason to justify a reach of a pick like that. He had no business being picked by the Cubs where he was picked. It's not justy hindsight that views Wilken's horrible track record, it was at the moment "my god what are the Cubs doing" opinions by many. He didn't get the job done. There's no reason to make a bunch of excuses, he had a long time to do and didn't do nearly enough, much like his boss.

 

 

The thing is... what player that was drafted in the first round after Colvin would you have rather Wilken drafted? Drabek looks like he may have things figured out and Kennedy had a good year last year but is off to a rough start this year. There is absolutely no success outside of those two.

 

There were a whole lot of misses in the first round of the '06 draft. There often is, but the '06 draft was especially dreadful.

 

Also, after last year's draft, it sounds like Wilken and RIcketts were insinuating that there were major financial restrictions put on the draft pre-Ricketts ownership. It's a shame that over slots won't be a major component in drafting going forward, because it seems like Wilken is quite productive with some money to spend.

 

That's not really a good argument either.

 

The fact that Wilken wasn't the only guy that missed in that draft isn't a good argument? Everyone wants to complain that he reached for Colvin, but the guys that he should have picked like Travis Snider, Matt Antonelli, and Hank Conger were also misses too.

 

Everybody makes a big deal about where draft gurus say a certain player should go and take it as gospel. The fact is, this isn't the NFL draft where the talking heads are able to at least see hours of game footage on these players to make their judgements. Making a big deal about who is and isn't a reach just seems like you're placing a whole lot of faith in guys that, don't have a whole heck of a lot to go on despite the fact that they may know more than you and me.

 

No, it's not a good argument. The Raiders missed on Jamarcus Russell, but several other teams had bad 1st round picks that year too. But clearly the Raiders' failure is more monumental than other teams that didn't pick a failed QB #1 overall. Granted, the NFL and MLB are 2 completely different animals. But my point is that all failures aren't created equally.

 

If you reach for a player and he fails, it's a lot worse than getting what most consider to be the best player available and having him fail. That's why nobody is reaming the Cubs for Mark Prior being out of the majors the last few years.

 

If your argument is Colvin wasn't a reach, well that's a different story that most do not agree with.

[scarey]

how is Conger a miss? he's 24 and has already acquitted himself very well at AAA; that's probably ahead of the curve for a catcher prospect

 

His OPS in the PCL hasn't been too impressive outside of his 59 ABs this year. Also, while it's a small sample size, his first 230 plate appearances at the MLB level have not shown much promise either at a .629 OPS. It's true that his fate is not set in stone though as he's still young. I guess I was projecting my own opinion about him as a universal opinion on him.

[scarey]

No, it's not a good argument. The Raiders missed on Jamarcus Russell, but several other teams had bad 1st round picks that year too. But clearly the Raiders' failure is more monumental than other teams that didn't pick a failed QB #1 overall. Granted, the NFL and MLB are 2 completely different animals. But my point is that all failures aren't created equally.

 

If you reach for a player and he fails, it's a lot worse than getting what most consider to be the best player available and having him fail. That's why nobody is reaming the Cubs for Mark Prior being out of the majors the last few years.

 

If your argument is Colvin wasn't a reach, well that's a different story that most do not agree with.

 

 

I guess my point is that Wilken missed on Colvin just like a lot of baseball decision makers miss in the draft. People want to define it as a miss on a reach, but to me people only call it a reach based on where a handful of media members that specialize in the MLB draft projected him to go, which I personally think is silly. If people generally thought Colvin should have been drafted at around 20 instead of around 30, I don't think we'd be hearing much about it. There really isn't that much of a difference between a player picked at 20 and 30 in most drafts in terms of success.

[rawaction]

No, it's not a good argument. The Raiders missed on Jamarcus Russell, but several other teams had bad 1st round picks that year too. But clearly the Raiders' failure is more monumental than other teams that didn't pick a failed QB #1 overall. Granted, the NFL and MLB are 2 completely different animals. But my point is that all failures aren't created equally.

 

If you reach for a player and he fails, it's a lot worse than getting what most consider to be the best player available and having him fail. That's why nobody is reaming the Cubs for Mark Prior being out of the majors the last few years.

 

If your argument is Colvin wasn't a reach, well that's a different story that most do not agree with.

 

 

I guess my point is that Wilken missed on Colvin just like a lot of baseball decision makers miss in the draft. People want to define it as a miss on a reach, but to me people only call it a reach based on where a handful of media members that specialize in the MLB draft projected him to go, which I personally think is silly. If people generally thought Colvin should have been drafted at around 20 instead of around 30, I don't think we'd be hearing much about it. There really isn't that much of a difference between a player picked at 20 and 30 in most drafts in terms of success.

 

How else are we supposed to judge it? And he was not ranked 20, he was ranked 30 and picked 13th. And yes it may have been the case that if the Cubs drafted Drabek or Jeffress they also would have amounted to as much as Colvin. But at least they weren't reaches. And the Cubs had a much better track record of developing pitching back then.

[PriortoTheoIhadWood]

 

How else are we supposed to judge it? And he was not ranked 20, he was ranked 30 and picked 13th. And yes it may have been the case that if the Cubs drafted Drabek or Jeffress they also would have amounted to as much as Colvin. But at least they weren't reaches. And the Cubs had a much better track record of developing pitching back then.

 

IMO this is a poor argument as well. They're not working with a community board or any kind of consensus...They picked from their board, and neither Drabek or Jeffress has really done anything worth talking about either. Both had character issues coming out, and both have had character problems in the big leagues.

[davell]

I'm not going to give Wilken a pass here at all. To me, the record speaks on it's own. And that's what we have to go off of. But, I do wonder if JH helped out in all of this a little too much. We typically would only be good for one solid overslot guy and they always would hang their hat on how many "major leaguers" are getting produced. Even if it were role players galore. The philosophy seemed to be a mixture of safe and cheap, for the most part. Whether it was more Wilken or Hendry is irrelevant to me honestly. But in the end, since Wilken's the scouting director. I put the blame on him. Because if he didn't agree with the philosophy, he didn't have to be here.

 

What if it was more Trib like its consistently reported?

 

I think some of you guys underrate the role of ownership...Just like Ricketts is a major part of the overhaul taking place right now, I think the Trib had a big hand in the draft (and FA -specifically Soriano's contract) as they were on the way out.

 

Personally, I like Wilken.

 

Without knowing the ins and outs of how the budget was constructed, I feel confident that eventually it was all added together. So, the 2.5 mill Neifi was given om a 2 year deal, the Grabow contract, the Eyre contract, the Howry deal, and I'm sure I'm fogetting quite a few, but that money, on a yearly basis, could have been used towards the draft/IFA. An extra 2, 3, 4 mill a year in this area obviously makes a huge difference longterm, much moreso than backup middle infielders and relievers that, while needed, could have been spent on MUCH more wisely and still accomplished this as well. So, I'm not blaming the Trib for that end of things, more how the budget was prioritized. And personally, if Wilken was truly great at his job, I would like to think at some point he could have been more persuasive towards getting a larger budget from Hendry.

[PriortoTheoIhadWood]

 

Without knowing the ins and outs of how the budget was constructed, I feel confident that eventually it was all added together. So, the 2.5 mill Neifi was given om a 2 year deal, the Grabow contract, the Eyre contract, the Howry deal, and I'm sure I'm fogetting quite a few, but that money, on a yearly basis, could have been used towards the draft/IFA. An extra 2, 3, 4 mill a year in this area obviously makes a huge difference longterm, much moreso than backup middle infielders and relievers that, while needed, could have been spent on MUCH more wisely and still accomplished this as well. So, I'm not blaming the Trib for that end of things, more how the budget was prioritized. And personally, if Wilken was truly great at his job, I would like to think at some point he could have been more persuasive towards getting a larger budget from Hendry.

 

Have to figure that maintaining the ML roster was more important and treated as such by the Trib while they worked to sell the franchise.

 

Wilken's job probably has nothing to do with trying to persuade anyone to give him more money. Hell, Hendry probably wouldn't even be the guy to ask for more money, it's the Trib's money. Knowing they planned to sell we know they had multiple agendas, and the draft/minors probably did not have a huge role in meeting those agendas.

 

If Theo came to an empty farm system and completely empty major league roster then maybe there's a problem with what Wilken has been doing. That's not the case, and it's one of the reason why being able to contend even next year is not such a ridiculous idea. Being able to flip Cashner for Rizzo...having a bullpen with some power arms (and more on the way)...having a young star SS...having Shark and Garza in the rotation...these are all things that can help speed up a rebuilding process...I've watched teams like the Rays and Royals take a decade+ to be of significance...the Cubs won't have to deal with that because the last FO left a bit of a foundation to build on despite the highly flawed current roster.

 

Plus, the 2011 draft was sweet. Baez has as much potential as any bat in the organization, including Castro.

[rawaction]

 

How else are we supposed to judge it? And he was not ranked 20, he was ranked 30 and picked 13th. And yes it may have been the case that if the Cubs drafted Drabek or Jeffress they also would have amounted to as much as Colvin. But at least they weren't reaches. And the Cubs had a much better track record of developing pitching back then.

 

IMO this is a poor argument as well. They're not working with a community board or any kind of consensus...They picked from their board, and neither Drabek or Jeffress has really done anything worth talking about either. Both had character issues coming out, and both have had character problems in the big leagues.

 

And that's why when there is anything close to a consensus (experts/scouts overall rankings) and someone deviates from that "consensus" drastically, it is considered a reach. Sure every team has their personal preferences and reasons for picking who they pick, but when the majority says one thing and you go against that, there will be backlash. That's how it works.

 

Hate to make another football comparison but Seattle drafted Bruce Irvin way earlier than many experts thought he would/should go. If he turns out to be a bust, people are going to say, "they shouldn't have reached for him". That's regardless of if every other DE drafted in the 1st round is a bust or not. It's better to be wrong with a bunch of people than it is to go out on a limb by yourself and be wrong. Colvin was a limb.

[Splendid Splinter]

I didn't mean for my post to come across so rudely. I typed it in a rush. What I was trying to say is that over the past month or so many are coming up with excuses for him about his strike outs whether it be he's injured or pressing for the new bosses.

 

It is one thing to make these excuses if he didn't normally strike out a bunch, but this is exactly who he has always been.

 

As for why I brought up Wilken - I have no respect for his eye as a talent evaluator. So, color me pessimistic until he drafts something even close to an impact player. His track record here is beyond poor. I don't see any reason on why he should have a job here in Chicago still.

 

 

Here's my problem with it... We all know he Ks quite a bit. The problem is that he never K this much for this long (almost a month). That's why a lot of people are wondering/guessing/making excuses/etc as to why he's doing so bad. Lets me give you an example here... In April (still a really bad month for B Jax), he had 103 PAs (AB+BB- i dont know where else to find any HBP, etc...) and 28 Ks which is good for a 27.2% K rate. It's high, but it's not bad when you take in account of his BBs. This month so far... 80 PAs and 32 Ks for 40% K rate. Past 9 games since he came back from back injury... 38 PAs and 18 Ks for 47.4% K rate. If you would take his 27.2% K rate from April for the past 9 games instead of 47.4%, he would have 8 less Ks.

 

Are you honestly going to tell me that this is who B Jax always been? So there's no reason/problem/excuses for this slump because "he always strike out/who he has always been"? Maybe it could be a mental thing or maybe the back injury is still bothering or maybe he just flat out fell off the cliff with his hitting skills. We all don't know, but we could guess. If it was like 35% then ok, I'll agree with you that he's in a funk/slump and he's K'ing more than usual. Right now... it's so far out of the norm that it's beyond slump/funk/etc. The only comparsion I can think of is like having the shanks in golf as to why he's doing so bad.

 

 

Still... there was no need to talk about Wilken. Nobody was talking about him until you did. Do you know how hard it is to draft an "impact player" outside of top 10 picks? I'm not counting guys like Pujols and anyone else who were drafted later and max out their potential. In that 2006 draft in the 1st round plus supplemental, I see 3 impact players (Longoria/Kershaw/Lincecum) and all 3 of them were drafted in the top 10. At least Colvin was productive for us in 2010. It could've been worse.

[PriortoTheoIhadWood]

And that's why when there is anything close to a consensus (experts/scouts overall rankings) and someone deviates from that "consensus" drastically, it is considered a reach. Sure every team has their personal preferences and reasons for picking who they pick, but when the majority says one thing and you go against that, there will be backlash. That's how it works.

 

Hate to make another football comparison but Seattle drafted Bruce Irvin way earlier than many experts thought he would/should go. If he turns out to be a bust, people are going to say, "they shouldn't have reached for him". That's regardless of if every other DE drafted in the 1st round is a bust or not. It's better to be wrong with a bunch of people than it is to go out on a limb by yourself and be wrong. Colvin was a limb.

 

Of course there will be backlash, but Colvin has (unfortunately for that draft) been one of the more productive first round picks from 2006's first round.

 

Also generally speaking I'd say its better to be wrong going out on a limb by yourself. It's just more comforting/comfortable to be wrong with other people.

[SouthSideRyan]

 

Of course there will be backlash, but Colvin has (unfortunately for that draft) been one of the more productive first round picks from 2006's first round.

 

bWAR has him 16th out of 30. (7 guys drafted below him ranking better, 4 guys drafted ahead of him ranking worse.)

 

Also generally speaking I'd say its better to be wrong going out on a limb by yourself. It's just more comforting/comfortable to be wrong with other people.

 

That seems to sum up our 1st round draft picks quite nicely. A look how smart we are you nerds attitude.

[Guest]

A couple of thoughts on Jackson:

 

Guys that strike out a lot at lower levels are often the ones that have special trouble with breaking balls. It very well could be that AAA has introduced him to far more pitchers that can consistently get breaking stuff over the plate and therefore he's getting exposed. He's a good enough hitter to make an adjustment, but it may take some time.

 

Now, that doesn't explain the recent explosion of awfulness as he's been facing the same AAA pitchers for a while now. But I feel like guys who already strike out a lot are more prone to bouts like this where they just get totally out of whack for a variety of reasons. They just don't have as much margin for error in their swings/approaches.