Sorry, Kyle, you're just wrong on this one. I'm not going to comment on what size your hope should be that the Cubs front office thinking is better or worse than "public consensus". That's completely subjective and everyone can hold their own opinions there. But where are you getting this half dozen number? Schwarber's $3.125 million falls in between 8th and 9th slot value. The highest Schwarber was mocked was 8th to the Rockies, and it happened with consistency as the draft picture gained focus. There's a slight chance he could've gone lower, but both the June 3rd Law mock and the last Callis mock had him going 8th. That's 4 picks after the Cubs, not 6. You can call him a mediocre underslot if you want, but who was better when you consider a player's floor? Who checked more boxes when you consider what Theo & Co. value (control of the strike zone, hit tool, power, mental make-up)? All the pitchers available at that spot had question marks and just by virtue of being pitchers were more risky than a college hitter that can hit, hit for power and has an excellent approach. Of the players that were drafted immediately after Schwarber (Gordon, Jackson, Nola, Freeland, Hoffman and Conforto), who stands out as the clearly better choice when we consider floor? When taken in context, Schwarber looks like the best, safest, most undervalued prospect available with equal or better likelihood of succeeding as a hitter at the major league level who by selecting would also allow the Cubs to take 3 upside prep arms instead of one or none. Calling him a "mediocre underslot" is excluding the context. In a draft that fell off in upside after the first three players chosen and was deep in talented high school arms (risky and thus should be taken in numbers to mitigate that), would you have preferred to draft Gordon or Jackson at slot and not have the money to go after 3 upside prep arms? Would you have preferred to take a stab in the dark at maybe just one of them or cover your bets by having three? We both know the attrition and fail rates of prospects. Would you have wanted to take a risky/question marked or injured pitcher with the 4th pick and then follow it up with more risk later on? Or would you have preferred making sure you get the best value you can get in the 1st round and save money to get more value in picks 4-6? This is the real world context. Your comments are being made as if all of this happened in a vacuum. And as far as the top 200 draft prospect equaling a top 2000 prospect? Your math/logic, if indeed you used any in that statement, is just dumb. You're better than that.