2014 Cubs Pick Discussion

[sneakypower]

Alex Jackson

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Which was the really exciting player available at #4 you would have picked?

 

The Cubs didn't have to do something wrong for the draft to be meh.

[treebird]

Alex Jackson

 

why would we take the best position player available when we could save money and give it to a broken high school pitcher

[jersey cubs fan]

Which was the really exciting player available at #4 you would have picked?

 

What does that have to do with anything. The question wasn't whether they made the right decision. They were in a crappy situation and made the most of it, but that does not make the draft good.

 

As it turns out it probably would have been better to win more games in 2013, oh well.

[Tangled Up in Plaid]

Alex Jackson

Yeah, I like Schwarber, but I'd still rather have Jackson.

[imb]

All I'm saying is that I was holding on to the slim, slim hope that maybe the public consensus was wrong and there were half a dozen teams inside baseball hot after Kyle Schwarber as the 4th-best talent and the bonus would reflect that. "Hooray, he's confirmed a mediocre underslot" doesn't cause me to celebrate.

 

As far as a dozen top-200 draft prospects, hooray, I guess. There's roughly 5 years worth of prospects in the minors at any given time. The draft makes up half the prospects in each year, with IFAs making up the other half. So "top-200 draft prospect" is just a fancy way of saying "Top-2000 prospect."

 

 

You're just looking for ways to be disappointed. What a [expletive], miserable way to live.

 

You say this like the Cubs draft was some runaway train of awesomeness and kyle is nitpicking the little things. They had the fourth pick and didn't come away with a really exciting player. It's fair to not be particularly impressed by it.

 

lmao what a hilarious way to misrepresenting his post

[jersey cubs fan]

All I'm saying is that I was holding on to the slim, slim hope that maybe the public consensus was wrong and there were half a dozen teams inside baseball hot after Kyle Schwarber as the 4th-best talent and the bonus would reflect that. "Hooray, he's confirmed a mediocre underslot" doesn't cause me to celebrate.

 

As far as a dozen top-200 draft prospects, hooray, I guess. There's roughly 5 years worth of prospects in the minors at any given time. The draft makes up half the prospects in each year, with IFAs making up the other half. So "top-200 draft prospect" is just a fancy way of saying "Top-2000 prospect."

 

 

You're just looking for ways to be disappointed. What a [expletive], miserable way to live.

 

You say this like the Cubs draft was some runaway train of awesomeness and kyle is nitpicking the little things. They had the fourth pick and didn't come away with a really exciting player. It's fair to not be particularly impressed by it.

 

lmao what a hilarious way to misrepresenting his post

no.

 

pointing out that a top 200 draft pick is not a thing that matters is not evidence of searching for disappointment. Nobody but the outlet that ranked those 200 guys would ever talk about how many top 200 players were taken.

[imb]

All I'm saying is that I was holding on to the slim, slim hope that maybe the public consensus was wrong and there were half a dozen teams inside baseball hot after Kyle Schwarber as the 4th-best talent and the bonus would reflect that. "Hooray, he's confirmed a mediocre underslot" doesn't cause me to celebrate.

 

As far as a dozen top-200 draft prospects, hooray, I guess. There's roughly 5 years worth of prospects in the minors at any given time. The draft makes up half the prospects in each year, with IFAs making up the other half. So "top-200 draft prospect" is just a fancy way of saying "Top-2000 prospect."

 

 

You're just looking for ways to be disappointed. What a [expletive], miserable way to live.

 

You say this like the Cubs draft was some runaway train of awesomeness and kyle is nitpicking the little things. They had the fourth pick and didn't come away with a really exciting player. It's fair to not be particularly impressed by it.

 

lmao what a hilarious way to misrepresenting his post

no.

 

pointing out that a top 200 draft pick is not a thing that matters is not evidence of searching for disappointment. Nobody but the outlet that ranked those 200 guys would ever talk about how many top 200 players were taken.

 

did you read the first paragraph of kyle's post or are the top half of your eyes cut off

[jersey cubs fan]

did you read the first paragraph of kyle's post or are the top half of your eyes cut off

 

I read what was quoted. He was putting his faith in the "the more money they give him the more they like him" theory that people use for the foreigners. What's the problem?

 

 

 

The Cubs picked 4th but didn't get the 4th best talent in the draft. Everything about this reflects that and it is okay to be disappointed in that despite the board's mandated pro-apologist stance.

[KingCubsFan]

Which was the really exciting player available at #4 you would have picked?

 

What does that have to do with anything. The question wasn't whether they made the right decision. They were in a crappy situation and made the most of it, but that does not make the draft good.

 

As it turns out it probably would have been better to win more games in 2013, oh well.

Or lost more games.

[sneakypower]

Which was the really exciting player available at #4 you would have picked?

 

What does that have to do with anything. The question wasn't whether they made the right decision. They were in a crappy situation and made the most of it, but that does not make the draft good.

 

As it turns out it probably would have been better to win more games in 2013, oh well.

Or lost more games.

only if Hoyer?/McLeod? was lying about Schwarber being #2 on their board

[jersey cubs fan]

Which was the really exciting player available at #4 you would have picked?

 

What does that have to do with anything. The question wasn't whether they made the right decision. They were in a crappy situation and made the most of it, but that does not make the draft good.

 

As it turns out it probably would have been better to win more games in 2013, oh well.

Or lost more games.

only if Hoyer?/McLeod? was lying about Schwarber being #2 on their board

 

The only way he was #2 was if "willingness to sign for well under slot" was part of how they ranked the ability of the player.

[Guest]

Which was the really exciting player available at #4 you would have picked?

 

What does that have to do with anything. The question wasn't whether they made the right decision. They were in a crappy situation and made the most of it, but that does not make the draft good.

 

As it turns out it probably would have been better to win more games in 2013, oh well.

Or lost more games.

only if Hoyer?/McLeod? was lying about Schwarber being #2 on their board

Fine. Lost a lot more games.

[snoodmonger]

did you read the first paragraph of kyle's post or are the top half of your eyes cut off

 

I read what was quoted. He was putting his faith in the "the more money they give him the more they like him" theory that people use for the foreigners. What's the problem?

 

 

 

The Cubs picked 4th but didn't get the 4th best talent in the draft. Everything about this reflects that and it is okay to be disappointed in that despite the board's mandated pro-apologist stance.

 

awesome. the argumentative grouch agrees with Eeyore the attention whore. this should make the board even better.

[imb]

Which was the really exciting player available at #4 you would have picked?

 

What does that have to do with anything. The question wasn't whether they made the right decision. They were in a crappy situation and made the most of it, but that does not make the draft good.

 

As it turns out it probably would have been better to win more games in 2013, oh well.

Or lost more games.

only if Hoyer?/McLeod? was lying about Schwarber being #2 on their board

 

The only way he was #2 was if "willingness to sign for well under slot" was part of how they ranked the ability of the player.

 

"Hey Jed, yeah, thanks for taking my call and setting me straight. I gotta go tell the board what you REALLY thought."

[Guest]

Unless I'm wrong, the compliments to the FO for this draft have been that they did the best possible job of optimizing a disappointing situation. I don't recall anyone saying, "OMG!!! this is the best draft eva!!!!!"

[Guest]

Which was the really exciting player available at #4 you would have picked?

 

What does that have to do with anything. The question wasn't whether they made the right decision. They were in a crappy situation and made the most of it, but that does not make the draft good.

 

As it turns out it probably would have been better to win more games in 2013, oh well.

Or lost more games.

only if Hoyer?/McLeod? was lying about Schwarber being #2 on their board

 

The only way he was #2 was if "willingness to sign for well under slot" was part of how they ranked the ability of the player.

Or if they weight things the way that many on this board did just before the draft.

 

You know, marking down pitchers for being pitchers, high school hitters for being high school hitters and looking at Schwarber as the best combination of upside and safe when it comes to the ability to hit.

[cbbryan]

Alex Jackson

Yeah, I like Schwarber, but I'd still rather have Jackson.

 

+1 here. Jackson was the player I really wanted and was disappointed they passed on him.

[Guest]

I'm trying to remember the last ranking I threw out there right before the draft, but I believe I had Jackson 1 and Schwarber 2.

 

I would have preferred Jackson at #4, but I'm happy with the way the strategy played out overall.

[sneakypower]

Unless I'm wrong, the compliments to the FO for this draft have been that they did the best possible job of optimizing a disappointing situation. I don't recall anyone saying, "OMG!!! this is the best draft eva!!!!!"

why was the situation so disappointing? the basic consensus was that Aiken/Rodon/Jackson were clear top-3 talents with a stray publication/opinion here & there throwing Kolek into that mix, and one of those guys made it to our pick

 

we just didn't seem to value that player or the non-baseball baggage attached to him

[Guest]

Unless I'm wrong, the compliments to the FO for this draft have been that they did the best possible job of optimizing a disappointing situation. I don't recall anyone saying, "OMG!!! this is the best draft eva!!!!!"

why was the situation so disappointing? the basic consensus was that Aiken/Rodon/Jackson were clear top-3 talents with a stray publication/opinion here & there throwing Kolek into that mix, and one of those guys made it to our pick

 

we just didn't seem to value that player or the non-baseball baggage attached to him

huh...Every reference I heard about the "big three" in this draft was for the pitchers, not Jackson.

 

Now, plenty of mocks had jackson going before Kolek and there were rumors of Kolek falling pre-draft, but any "big three" talk was all about the ones who actually went 1-3.

[KingCubsFan]

I can't fault the front office for going for a college bat, particularly the one with the most raw power in the draft. Pretty much everything I read about him pre-draft said "great hitter, but defense is questionable." Couple that with the fact that he's got limited upside due to his age and body type, and I can see why he wasn't ranked as highly as others. The draft guys tend to favor high-ceiling, up-the-middle position players and pitchers who throw hard. Schwarber is neither.

[Rob]

Unless I'm wrong, the compliments to the FO for this draft have been that they did the best possible job of optimizing a disappointing situation. I don't recall anyone saying, "OMG!!! this is the best draft eva!!!!!"

why was the situation so disappointing? the basic consensus was that Aiken/Rodon/Jackson were clear top-3 talents with a stray publication/opinion here & there throwing Kolek into that mix, and one of those guys made it to our pick

 

we just didn't seem to value that player or the non-baseball baggage attached to him

 

The big 3 were Aiken, Rodon, and Kolek. Hoffman was in that group as well before the injury.

 

Jackson wasn't some consensus top pick. He was only talked about with the #2 because it was thought the Marlins might act like the Marlins and go cheap.

 

Best prep bat? Sure. Top 3 talent, nope.

[ScrubMD]

Everything about this reflects that and it is okay to be disappointed in that despite the board's mandated pro-apologist stance.

 

This is like, Glenn Beck/Alex Jones language. You're kind of a weirdo.

[davell]

Steele's Twitter bio now reads LHP for the Chicago Cubs, Yags is awesome.