2014 Cubs Pick Discussion

Discussion about the June amateur draft, college baseball, high school baseball, etc.
User avatar
sneakypower
Javy Baez Fanclub President
Posts: 10436
Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2007 6:58 pm
Location: behind the boathouse

Re: 2014 Cubs Pick Discussion

Postby sneakypower » Thu Jun 12, 2014 11:42 am

Alex Jackson
Image

User avatar
Hairyducked Idiot
Kyle in disguise
Posts: 31177
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2004 8:42 am
Location: Friendly Neighborhood Spider-Man

Re: 2014 Cubs Pick Discussion

Postby Hairyducked Idiot » Thu Jun 12, 2014 11:43 am

Tim wrote: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.

User avatar
treebird
chinese food
Posts: 19821
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2003 9:25 pm

2014 Cubs Pick Discussion

Postby treebird » Thu Jun 12, 2014 11:58 am

sneakypower wrote: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

User avatar
jersey cubs fan
Hall of Fame
Posts: 49519
Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2007 12:38 pm

Re: 2014 Cubs Pick Discussion

Postby jersey cubs fan » Thu Jun 12, 2014 12:00 pm

Tim wrote: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.
Tim wrote:"Hawthorne Effect". Basically, people improve their behavior if they know they're being watched. I'm a competitive cur, so having friends that are also doing it drives me to want to "win" daily/weekly challenges and such.

User avatar
Tangled Up in Plaid
Dripping with analytics
Posts: 5900
Joined: Sun Mar 31, 2013 9:30 pm
Location: Sacramento, CA
Contact:

Re: 2014 Cubs Pick Discussion

Postby Tangled Up in Plaid » Thu Jun 12, 2014 12:02 pm

sneakypower wrote:Alex Jackson

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

User avatar
Bunts Lick Butts
Turdologist
Posts: 28070
Joined: Wed Jun 18, 2003 1:57 am
Contact:

Re: 2014 Cubs Pick Discussion

Postby Bunts Lick Butts » Thu Jun 12, 2014 12:06 pm

jersey cubs fan wrote:
snoodmonger wrote:
KyleJRM wrote: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
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/functions.php on line 2412: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at [ROOT]/posting.php:1)

User avatar
jersey cubs fan
Hall of Fame
Posts: 49519
Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2007 12:38 pm

Re: 2014 Cubs Pick Discussion

Postby jersey cubs fan » Thu Jun 12, 2014 12:09 pm

imb! wrote:
jersey cubs fan wrote:
snoodmonger wrote:
KyleJRM wrote: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.
Tim wrote:"Hawthorne Effect". Basically, people improve their behavior if they know they're being watched. I'm a competitive cur, so having friends that are also doing it drives me to want to "win" daily/weekly challenges and such.

User avatar
Bunts Lick Butts
Turdologist
Posts: 28070
Joined: Wed Jun 18, 2003 1:57 am
Contact:

Re: 2014 Cubs Pick Discussion

Postby Bunts Lick Butts » Thu Jun 12, 2014 12:12 pm

jersey cubs fan wrote:
imb! wrote:
jersey cubs fan wrote:
snoodmonger wrote:
KyleJRM wrote: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
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/functions.php on line 2412: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at [ROOT]/posting.php:1)

User avatar
jersey cubs fan
Hall of Fame
Posts: 49519
Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2007 12:38 pm

Re: 2014 Cubs Pick Discussion

Postby jersey cubs fan » Thu Jun 12, 2014 12:16 pm

imb! wrote: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.
Tim wrote:"Hawthorne Effect". Basically, people improve their behavior if they know they're being watched. I'm a competitive cur, so having friends that are also doing it drives me to want to "win" daily/weekly challenges and such.

User avatar
KingCubsFan
All-Star
Posts: 3287
Joined: Mon Oct 03, 2005 1:39 pm
Location: Chicago, IL

Re: 2014 Cubs Pick Discussion

Postby KingCubsFan » Thu Jun 12, 2014 12:18 pm

jersey cubs fan wrote:
Tim wrote: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.

User avatar
sneakypower
Javy Baez Fanclub President
Posts: 10436
Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2007 6:58 pm
Location: behind the boathouse

Re: 2014 Cubs Pick Discussion

Postby sneakypower » Thu Jun 12, 2014 12:21 pm

KingCubsFan wrote:
jersey cubs fan wrote:
Tim wrote: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
Image

User avatar
jersey cubs fan
Hall of Fame
Posts: 49519
Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2007 12:38 pm

Re: 2014 Cubs Pick Discussion

Postby jersey cubs fan » Thu Jun 12, 2014 12:22 pm

sneakypower wrote:
KingCubsFan wrote:
jersey cubs fan wrote:
Tim wrote: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.
Tim wrote:"Hawthorne Effect". Basically, people improve their behavior if they know they're being watched. I'm a competitive cur, so having friends that are also doing it drives me to want to "win" daily/weekly challenges and such.

User avatar
Tim
Hall of Fame
Posts: 39913
Joined: Fri Feb 28, 2003 11:02 am
Location: Naperville, IL
Contact:

Re: 2014 Cubs Pick Discussion

Postby Tim » Thu Jun 12, 2014 12:23 pm

sneakypower wrote:
KingCubsFan wrote:
jersey cubs fan wrote:
Tim wrote: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.
Spoiler: show

Image

User avatar
snoodmonger
Superstar
Posts: 11627
Joined: Wed Jul 14, 2004 10:53 pm
Location: LA
Contact:

Re: 2014 Cubs Pick Discussion

Postby snoodmonger » Thu Jun 12, 2014 12:24 pm

jersey cubs fan wrote:
imb! wrote: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.

User avatar
Bunts Lick Butts
Turdologist
Posts: 28070
Joined: Wed Jun 18, 2003 1:57 am
Contact:

Re: 2014 Cubs Pick Discussion

Postby Bunts Lick Butts » Thu Jun 12, 2014 12:25 pm

jersey cubs fan wrote:
sneakypower wrote:
KingCubsFan wrote:
jersey cubs fan wrote:
Tim wrote: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."
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/functions.php on line 2412: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at [ROOT]/posting.php:1)

User avatar
Tim
Hall of Fame
Posts: 39913
Joined: Fri Feb 28, 2003 11:02 am
Location: Naperville, IL
Contact:

Re: 2014 Cubs Pick Discussion

Postby Tim » Thu Jun 12, 2014 12:27 pm

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!!!!!"
Spoiler: show

Image

User avatar
Tim
Hall of Fame
Posts: 39913
Joined: Fri Feb 28, 2003 11:02 am
Location: Naperville, IL
Contact:

Re: 2014 Cubs Pick Discussion

Postby Tim » Thu Jun 12, 2014 12:30 pm

jersey cubs fan wrote:
sneakypower wrote:
KingCubsFan wrote:
jersey cubs fan wrote:
Tim wrote: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.
Spoiler: show

Image

User avatar
cbbryan
All-Star
Posts: 3437
Joined: Sun Jun 15, 2003 4:57 am
Location: Champaign, IL
Contact:

Re: 2014 Cubs Pick Discussion

Postby cbbryan » Thu Jun 12, 2014 12:48 pm

Tangled Up in Plaid wrote:
sneakypower wrote: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.
Image

User avatar
Tim
Hall of Fame
Posts: 39913
Joined: Fri Feb 28, 2003 11:02 am
Location: Naperville, IL
Contact:

Re: 2014 Cubs Pick Discussion

Postby Tim » Thu Jun 12, 2014 12:50 pm

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.
Spoiler: show

Image

User avatar
sneakypower
Javy Baez Fanclub President
Posts: 10436
Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2007 6:58 pm
Location: behind the boathouse

Re: 2014 Cubs Pick Discussion

Postby sneakypower » Thu Jun 12, 2014 12:56 pm

Tim wrote: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
Image

User avatar
Tim
Hall of Fame
Posts: 39913
Joined: Fri Feb 28, 2003 11:02 am
Location: Naperville, IL
Contact:

Re: 2014 Cubs Pick Discussion

Postby Tim » Thu Jun 12, 2014 1:07 pm

sneakypower wrote:
Tim wrote: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.
Spoiler: show

Image

User avatar
KingCubsFan
All-Star
Posts: 3287
Joined: Mon Oct 03, 2005 1:39 pm
Location: Chicago, IL

Re: 2014 Cubs Pick Discussion

Postby KingCubsFan » Thu Jun 12, 2014 1:34 pm

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.

User avatar
Rob
Superstar
Posts: 12817
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 8:33 am

Re: 2014 Cubs Pick Discussion

Postby Rob » Thu Jun 12, 2014 2:44 pm

sneakypower wrote:
Tim wrote: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
All-Star
Posts: 3919
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 11:45 am

Re: 2014 Cubs Pick Discussion

Postby ScrubMD » Thu Jun 12, 2014 3:08 pm

jersey cubs fan wrote: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
Superstar
Posts: 15883
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2005 5:55 pm

Re: 2014 Cubs Pick Discussion

Postby davell » Thu Jun 12, 2014 3:14 pm

Steele's Twitter bio now reads LHP for the Chicago Cubs, Yags is awesome.
Additional rule: you have to have one or the other.The only exception is you have an amazing board name. davell, I'm looking at you; put up a [expletive] avatar or something if your name only sounds like somebody tried say Dave as they lapsed into a coma.


Return to “Amateur Baseball”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest