badnews

Somebody else in here mentioned Brian Roberts again, even as a joke that needs to be shot down.

Higher as in closer to #1 or higher as in closer to #1500? Because if it's the former I was going to make a wiseass comment about the Cubs never doing anything like that.

Whoa whoa whoa. Earlier weren't people just amazed with his easy arm action and smooth mechanics and how he was this year's Jarrod Parker? I'm pretty sure if push comes to shove I can dig up the posts where people are talking about his mechanics. I remember in particular one response to the whole thing "I like." That line. How did we go from smooth mechanics and easy arm action to "incredibly violent delivery?" We must pour more NSBB money into our scouting department so I can have a scouting report with no conflicts.

Like movies involving stuff like the ark of the covenant melting Nazi faces, magic rocks that can be used to control the world, and a 900 year old knight guarding the holy grail makes less sense? I don't like when people post stuff like this. That'd be like if in Back to the Future 3 you find out the Tannen family doesn't exist and it's just all Marty's alter ego like Tyler Durden, and you say that's crap and some wise guy says "What, it's less believeable than a DeLorean time machine or that Libyan terrorists back in the day actually had plutonium they could smuggle into the U.S. or you can invent time travel by hitting your head or you can funnel a lightning bolt into the engine of a car?"

I don't think Bedard was ever going to be as good as he was in 2007 which is why a trade then seemed bad. He's not even close to dominating and you fear he's going to hit a wall at that 180 inning mark and that is your October guy? Plus who do we have that's as good as Adam Jones and Chris Tillman? Let's just forget about trading with the Orioles.

Greinke's a fine pitcher and yeah, we have a crappy farm system with jack crap to offer, but I don't like the idea that he's so impossibly good no one could ever afford him. Josh Hamilton and Delmon Young types? Yeah, good luck selling that.

It's oversimplifying things to call every righthanded pitcher with good stuff and an injury history Mark Prior.

The Cubs haven't been big on high school guys any which way for a while, but now it seems weird to me. Here's a question for the draft gurus: Has any team ever drafted so few high school guys through the first 20 or 25 rounds in a draft before? I mean this looks worse than early 00s A's and Blue Jays. I don't like this at all. Tampa and the Dodgers didn't build badass farm systems like this. I'd to see more high school pitchers drafted in Rounds 2-9. Is Schafer, who I'm not sure I understand the enthusiasm over, the poor, poor man's Jared Hughes? Used to have great stuff, now succeeds with blah stuff, and people can't forget he used to have good stuff, imposing stature, so forth? I hope it's not an apt comparison.

Those were the worst ABs I've seen all year. 11 strikeouts for Kuroda when his previous high was 5? Give me a break.

No to Cook for me. I think I've said this a number of times already, but in my opinion for the playoffs this team needs a guy who can miss bats, not another low K groundballer type. Preferably a righty who gets his swings and misses. I don't think the Aaron Cooks or Jake Westbrooks are the guys you want to blow your chips on when it comes to "The Curse."

Yeah, the Gray pick is nothing to be excited about, it's a foregone conclusion. Looking over the draft, on another note, is any organization as allergic to high schoolers as we are? Tampa actually drafts high schoolers, yet another reason why it doesn't look like Wilken had as much to do with their 2004 draft as people want to tout. The early picks that bother me the most are Flaherty (which is exacerbated because of the guys left on the board) and Schafer. What's confusing about Schafer is that you describe what this guy used to be like and then look at the reports for guys on the board, they're guys who *are* what Schafer *used* to be like. I don't know that guys like Josh Harrison are sexy picks like Jordan Danks either. There have been a few comments about this high potential arms, a lot of them the scouting reports are identical to Jake Renshaw, who we gave away for nothing, so I don't know about that. I haven't looked it all through. Believe it or not I don't mind badass athletic high schoolers with no bat skills, I just don't like them with the first pick when there's someone better around.

I read through Baseball America's draft blog. I kept looking for some mention of the Cubs. You know, where the guys write "This is a good pick for this area." No mention though.

"Flashy athlete" could give the wrong impression, but the point being, Colvin was more athletic and toolsy. If they saw Colvin as a pure hitter then they're worse off than I thought, if you looked at Baseball America's college All-Star team that year, Colvin was, by far, the guy with the worst K/BB ratio. He struck out more than you wanted from a batting average guy, didn't walk enough, didn't hit for enough power, didn't steal enough bases to compensate, wasn't a fantastic Stubbsian defensive outfielder or anything, so what now? I'm glad the Giants took Lincecum three spots ahead, it's be worse if we had passed on him. I don't know why the Cubs blatantly waste picks. Ten seconds after they took Mike Billek everyone knew it was a wasted pick. Even if you look on this site, whoever wrote the report on Billek on this site was "What the hell?" The Cubs treat 3rd round picks like most teams treat 17th round picks: "Who the hell cares, let's throw darts at a list of names."

PingHitter, I keep saying this but you don't want to acknowledge this: It's possible to make the logical choice at the time and still have things turn out not great. That's where Teixeira vs. Prior doesn't work for me. That decision was a good one then. And the extenuating circumstances of Prior's 130+ pitch games are ignored, I see. And why is it you guys never say "It's too soon to tell" when a guy looks awesome early in his career but when he stinks out loud it's too soon? Last year when Donaldson looked great everyone was all "Wow, Wilken's redeemed himself!" There was also some jeering (maybe it was another board) about somebody who wanted Canham instead of Donaldson (the "look who's wrong now, LOL" type of jabs). But it takes someone stinking in geologic time for anyone here to get a license to critique the player. This is a blatant double standard. And let's not try and pretend people weren't all over Tony Thomas and Donaldson last year, and Rhee in, what, 4 starts this year? It's not too soon to have a man-crush on Rhee, but it's soon to say "Gee, this is going like crap for Vitters?" Come on. What is this?

Average isn't good enough. Of course, when it hasn't been two years that players have been in the system, bias is more likely to take control rather than objective thinking if you're unable to factor that it isn't been more than two years. I don't give crap about what BA writes, I respect their work, but they had the Twins with the best draft in '04 and were way off, the Tigers before that, and they've been right as well (LA in '03). History will dictate which teams will have better draft success than BA, that history is created by quality scouting directors, good scouts, and productive player personnel. Some of the better Scouting Directors reside in LA, Washington, MIL, and in my opinion Cubs. Wilken has had a better track record of drafts than BA. What is by the book anyways? LA's drafting philosophy? Oakland's? What Baseball America writes? This is just your opinion of what you think it should be rather than some book. I'm cutting Wilken a break b/c it hasn't been two years yet, you seem completely unable to factor the roles of other scouts, player development, etc. and mention Snider/Colvin. Two years is enough to see that Samardzija, Colvin, Lansford, all the rest, look bad to me. I'm not going to wait 10 years on a draft before I make any comment on it whatsoever. This reminds me of all the years on here we got chastized for saying anything bad about Ryan Harvey. "He's young, blah blah blah, let's all sit on our hands and pretend like this isn't a bust for another 7 more years and hopefully by then those who could see this coming will have moved on due to boredom." Wilken has the better track record like Dusty Baker had a winning record as a manager. Now you're being apologist. This guy isn't drafting anything like his successful drafts. I thought you were more objective than this. That's why I cite Dusty Baker here - all people are talking about is some useless track record from way back when instead of what's happening now. A guy who takes Colvin over Snider is out of touch, no matter what the track record says, just like a guy who bats two sub-.300 OBP players ahead of a Triple Crown candidate is out of touch, no matter how many wins he has. By the book is the more or less consensus of the experts. You say we can't be wrong in hindsight but then you don't like when people make observations too quickly.

Why is "average" good enough though? That 2006 draft doesn't look average to me. The problem is I think this board has always liked certain guys, like Josh Lansford, better than I have. I didn't literally Wilken talked like that, but I was referencing the idea that it's not unreal to think if any team is going to pass up an awesome "bad body" hitter for a flashy athlete with zero baseball playing acumen, it's the Cubs. What I don't like about what you're saying is this: The Cubs had well-rated drafts and they didn't work out so let's just give up on the idea of doing anything by the book any more. I don't care for that thinking. How about we keep having well-rated drafts and hope they work out. If he projected Colvin to be a better player than Snider when no one else in the known universe would have thought that what does it say about him? Sorry, you're cutting these guys too many breaks. Wilken picks the guy nobody else would over the surefire bet and then has to blah blah blah about how he's the next Alex Rios and what, this is just a shrug? I can't shrug off what looks like incompetence and foolishness to me that easily.

Does every fan think they're team are taking best guys at every position in the draft? Barney prob. fills a role, that's an example of a safe pick. I agree that I would rather see a higher ceiling guy there, but there's going to be guys like this and there's going to be high ceiling guys mixed in. TB has had a bunch safe picks and signable guys below slot mixed in too as has NYY and Boston, etc. But do you think we're doing so as well as or better than other teams? I'm not unreasonable. The Red Sox, even if the middle of good drafts, make picks I don't like. Jason Place, I thought, was just a poor pick. I like the way the Dodgers draft but I didn't like the Preston Mattingly pick. The problem is we have the same kind of blah picks as those teams but not so much the stunning successes. We're the never the team that wows the experts the day after. I think we should be. Every year the list of teams who had the greatest draft success the day after changes, but when it is it the Cubs? Outside validation may not be important to a lot of people, but it is to me, because I don't trust this organization in such matters, this organization is the one that continues to talk about Samardzija and how great he is while the rest of the world rolls their eyes, and hands out fat paychecks to Huseby while the rest of the world goes "Who?" I mean really. When the Rockies hand out fat checks to Dexter Fowler or the Angels to Adenhart, even if they work out you don't say "Who in the hell was that?" You don't say "Who is this Lars Anderson" guy? You don't often see teams taking guys at #14 who are slotted like 40 picks lower than that. The problem seems to me is that some guys in this organization think their opinion is the only one that matters. If that's not true, that is what it looks like from the outside to me. When Baseball America says that Travis Snider is the closest high school hitter to the majors and a college-type hitter, and Tim Wilken says "Whoa whoa whoa wait a minute there fella, that guy's a fat sack of crap, he can only do one thing well, hit like a beast, we need this Tyler Colvin guy who doesn't a couple of things decently, the next Alex Rios" and the rest of the world just sort of says "Well, maybe there is a reason he says that" but no, the benefit of the doubt is worthless, and the rest of the world is always right and the seemingly insular Chicago Cubs are pretty much always wrong - come on. It's a step in the right direction that we've actually heard of these guys, yes. But these seem like small steps.

The Cubs have had every scouting philosophy known to man, some drafts they've put an emphasis on high ceiling athletes from HS that have bombed. They've taken high ceiling college arms that have failed, they taken safe college position players w/good apporaches at the plate that have failed, they've drafted overslotted college position players that have failed, they've drafted pure hitting HS kids that were supposed to be safe HS bets, etc. What years were each of those? Some of those approaches I definitely like better than others. This draft isn't horrible because I've seen drafts where the Cubs stake out their own paths and the guys aren't even on BA's Top 200 prospects or anybody's top anything, or they're all way too low. Right now I like picks that make sense at the time of the choosing. If they don't work out, you've done what you can. For example, I thought the Tony Richie pick in the, what, 5th round? how many years ago was a fine pick. It didn't work the way we'd hope, but I don't have complaints about that pick. It was sound decision making at the time. But I think there were some strange reaches and then once again I think we went into "I give up for this draft" mode too quickly. Do people think the Cubs are taking the best guys (within financial considerations) at every spot in their draft? Like last year, why do you throw away a pick with Darwin Barney in the 4th round when you could have someone like, I don't know, Sean Morgan? Neither of them may do anything but one choice makes sense to me and the other doesn't.

I'm surprised you don't see it has much to do with scouting philosophies. They seem to have some definite "quirks" that influence things. The safe picks don't even seem very safe. And it seems like the Cubs always start in on the "I give up" picks a few rounds too early.

Everyone has a budget, it's just a question of what it should be. Like I said, it's just a little frustrating when they have the money for Huseby or Samardzija but not for guys I'd actually be excited to see.

I hope that isn't meant to be reassuring?

Wow, you're just determined to stir up trouble with these petty little potshots, aren't you? We're not really talking "facts" here so much, but whatever. If you disagree with me on baseball opinions there's no reason to go where you're going here. You'll notice I asked about the possible high school guys and such. Which no one really bothered to answer, but okay. The "fact" is that it takes between 3-4 years to have a decent idea of how well a draft went. To savage the decision makers at this juncture is premature. This is done in sports all the time. And it's stupid. It may be stupid to you to speculate but without stupid sports speculation this topic, this forum, this board and many like it would have no reason to exist. It just seems odd to me to attack a message board's reason for being on the message board itself. Sports message boards are for speculation. We are engaged in speculation.

If the Cubs drafted as high as TB and KC, they would sign those high picks as well. If the Cubs feel Melville isn't worth his demands, why should they draft him? I have no problems with the Cubs draft so far, they'll never go for 6 for 6, some unrealistic expectations in regards to the draft. Yes, the Cubs have a scouting and player development budget. For what it cost to get the Korean SS and Cashman is likely the equiv. to what it'll cost to sign Melville. I'm not shooting the messenger here, but it's difficult for me to be sympathetic to the "We don't have the money" song and dance. When it comes to throwing boatloads of money at guys I don't like, then money isn't an issue. I'll still be hoping for that 11th/12th round HS pitcher that offers a little more than you'd expect from that area, even if it's not Walden/Latos/Anderson like.

Wow, you're just determined to stir up trouble with these petty little potshots, aren't you? We're not really talking "facts" here so much, but whatever. If you disagree with me on baseball opinions there's no reason to go where you're going here. You'll notice I asked about the possible high school guys and such. Which no one really bothered to answer, but okay. The "fact" is that it takes between 3-4 years to have a decent idea of how well a draft went. To savage the decision makers at this juncture is premature. This is done in sports all the time. To make judgments on a season before it's done, premature. To make judgments on Theriot vs. Greene before the season is played, premature. To all of the speculation ever made on any sports topic, it can all be dismissed with a simple "Let's wait and see." If all we did was "wait and see" we'd never have anything to discuss.

A lot of people are pleased if the Cubs don't have a horrible draft because they know they are very capable of it. I tend to hope for a little more than "not horrible." That's what I meant.