+- Sons of Ivy (https://sonsofivy.com/forum)
+-- Forum: Chicago Cubs (https://sonsofivy.com/forum/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The Friendly Confines (https://sonsofivy.com/forum/forum-8.html)
+--- Thread: The Draft (/thread-6966.html)
The Draft - ruby23 - 06-09-2009
<!--quoteo(post=43254:date=Jun 9 2009, 06:37 PM:name=Coldneck)-->QUOTE (Coldneck @ Jun 9 2009, 06:37 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=43250:date=Jun 9 2009, 07:30 PM:name=stevestonescigar)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (stevestonescigar @ Jun 9 2009, 07:30 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->I guess I missed it. How did the Nationals get two top ten picks?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There was a new rule put in last year that says a team that doesn't sign it's #1 draft pick gets compensated the same pick the following year. They were 9 last year and didn't sign their pick so they were awarded #9b (10) this year. It's a stupid rule.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's not a stupid rule, it helps level the playing field, takes the power out of the agents hands, helps slot picks compensation-wise, and gives teams the ability to not overpay.
The Draft - Giff - 06-09-2009
<!--quoteo(post=43262:date=Jun 9 2009, 07:00 PM:name=ruby23)-->QUOTE (ruby23 @ Jun 9 2009, 07:00 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=43254:date=Jun 9 2009, 06:37 PM:name=Coldneck)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Coldneck @ Jun 9 2009, 06:37 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=43250:date=Jun 9 2009, 07:30 PM:name=stevestonescigar)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (stevestonescigar @ Jun 9 2009, 07:30 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->I guess I missed it. How did the Nationals get two top ten picks?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There was a new rule put in last year that says a team that doesn't sign it's #1 draft pick gets compensated the same pick the following year. They were 9 last year and didn't sign their pick so they were awarded #9b (10) this year. It's a stupid rule.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's not a stupid rule, it helps level the playing field, takes the power out of the agents hands, helps slot picks compensation-wise, and gives teams the ability to not overpay.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This.
The Draft - kbwsb - 06-09-2009
<!--quoteo(post=43262:date=Jun 9 2009, 07:00 PM:name=ruby23)-->QUOTE (ruby23 @ Jun 9 2009, 07:00 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=43254:date=Jun 9 2009, 06:37 PM:name=Coldneck)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Coldneck @ Jun 9 2009, 06:37 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=43250:date=Jun 9 2009, 07:30 PM:name=stevestonescigar)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (stevestonescigar @ Jun 9 2009, 07:30 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->I guess I missed it. How did the Nationals get two top ten picks?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There was a new rule put in last year that says a team that doesn't sign it's #1 draft pick gets compensated the same pick the following year. They were 9 last year and didn't sign their pick so they were awarded #9b (10) this year. It's a stupid rule.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's not a stupid rule, it helps level the playing field, takes the power out of the agents hands, helps slot picks compensation-wise, and gives teams the ability to not overpay.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I agree. I like the rule.
However, wasn't Washington's pick last year (Aaron Crow) the #5 overall pick?
How did that pick turn into a #10?
The Draft - ruby23 - 06-09-2009
<!--quoteo(post=43264:date=Jun 9 2009, 07:04 PM:name=KBwsb)-->QUOTE (KBwsb @ Jun 9 2009, 07:04 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=43262:date=Jun 9 2009, 07:00 PM:name=ruby23)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ruby23 @ Jun 9 2009, 07:00 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=43254:date=Jun 9 2009, 06:37 PM:name=Coldneck)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Coldneck @ Jun 9 2009, 06:37 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=43250:date=Jun 9 2009, 07:30 PM:name=stevestonescigar)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (stevestonescigar @ Jun 9 2009, 07:30 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->I guess I missed it. How did the Nationals get two top ten picks?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There was a new rule put in last year that says a team that doesn't sign it's #1 draft pick gets compensated the same pick the following year. They were 9 last year and didn't sign their pick so they were awarded #9b (10) this year. It's a stupid rule.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's not a stupid rule, it helps level the playing field, takes the power out of the agents hands, helps slot picks compensation-wise, and gives teams the ability to not overpay.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I agree. I like the rule.
However, wasn't Washington's pick last year (Aaron Crow) the #5 overall pick?
How did that pick turn into a #10?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Washington picked 9th last year, so they get the 9 B pick this year.
The Draft - kbwsb - 06-09-2009
<!--quoteo(post=43258:date=Jun 9 2009, 06:50 PM:name=Butcher)-->QUOTE (Butcher @ Jun 9 2009, 06:50 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=43245:date=Jun 9 2009, 06:19 PM:name=Destined)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Destined @ Jun 9 2009, 06:19 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->The draft is a crap shoot. The Red Sox have all those picks from 2005 playing now, what are the odds of that happening? Low. It was luck.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I could be luck, I guess. It could also be their amazing scouting and talent evaluation. I'm leaning towards the latter.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Butch, I'm glad you're on this site.
The Red Sox, starting in 2003, began to make a HUGE deal out of drafting amateur players. They vastly increased their scouting, they brought in a whole new staff of younger, different-thinking scouts, they analyzed HS and college stats to the nth degree...and guess what? Shocker!
They started to have impact drafts.
Remember how they were supposed to be "cursed." Uh- huh. Curses, luck, rabbit's feet...that's it.
(btw, Ruby you're right about Crow/Nats. )
The Draft - Coldneck - 06-09-2009
The Nats took Crow with the 9th pick last year.
9th pick
The Draft - BT - 06-09-2009
I'm hoping for Rex Brothers right now.
The Draft - BT - 06-09-2009
Brett Jackson. Bad news, Harold from BBTN LOVES this guy, so we are probably screwed
The Draft - Coldneck - 06-09-2009
Brett Jackson - Harold just says he swings and missed a lot. But they all say it was a good pick.
The Draft - BT - 06-09-2009
Brett Jackson
<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->Hitting ability: Jackson has a solid, balanced approach at the plate. He doesn't have a big load to the ball and sometimes looks like he's rushing a bit.
Power: Shows average raw power now, but the way he swings it, he doesn't tap into it. He slaps at the ball a little more as Cal's leadoff hitter. But he does have some pop in there.
Running speed: Has above-average speed, with a football player's stride; someone who runs hard.
Base running: It's OK and he should be able to steal some bases in the future.
Arm strength: Has a plus arm from the outfield.
Fielding: He's fine in center now, but if he gets bigger and slows down, he might have to move to a corner spot.
Range: Runs gap-to-gap well.
Physical Description: Jackson is a big, athletic outfielder with good overall body strength.
Medical Update: Healthy.
Strengths: Strength, athletic ability. Some hitting ability and good speed to go along with good overall actions in center field.
Weaknesses: Strikes out a little too often for a leadoff hitter, but can he hit for enough power to be a No. 3 type. If he gets bigger, he may not be able to stay in center.
Summary: It's not a great Draft class for college bats, particularly in the outfield, so one with the athleticism Jackson has is bound to be noticed. He runs well on both sides of the ball, has a decent approach at the plate and plays a good center field right now. Some may see him as a tweener who isn't a leadoff hitter or a No. 3 type. If he gets bigger he will have to move to a corner, where how much power he actually has becomes a bigger question. He's got more value if he can stay in center, and the team that takes him may be hoping he can stay put.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The Draft - Coldneck - 06-09-2009
John Hart says he's an athlete and a gamer (scout talk for he's not great at anything). I'd rather hear he's always on base and hits the shit out of the ball. Evidently he's a free swinger and might no be able to stick at CF.
The Draft - cigar - 06-09-2009
I like that John Hart liked him though. Hart has made some pretty nice draft picks in his career
The Draft - Ace - 06-09-2009
Sounds like Tyler Colvin to me.
The Draft - Fella - 06-09-2009
<!--quoteo(post=43297:date=Jun 9 2009, 07:03 PM:name=Ace)-->QUOTE (Ace @ Jun 9 2009, 07:03 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->Sounds like Tyler Colvin to me.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yeah, everything sounds really similar. Scouting report matches him almost exactly.
The Draft - rok - 06-09-2009
<!--quoteo(post=43298:date=Jun 9 2009, 08:03 PM:name=Fella)-->QUOTE (Fella @ Jun 9 2009, 08:03 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=43297:date=Jun 9 2009, 07:03 PM:name=Ace)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Ace @ Jun 9 2009, 07:03 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->Sounds like Tyler Colvin to me.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yeah, everything sounds really similar. Scouting report matches him almost exactly.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So we've already got his replacement waiting once Colvin is released in a year or so. Sweet.