Starlin Castro

[Ace]

Colvin was a reach, and that was common knowledge when the pick was made. He was projected as a 3rd or 4th rounder. But the Cubs didn't have early round picks after the 1st round that year, and knew they wanted to take Samardzija later. So I can understand the Colvin pick, even if I very much disagreed with it (then and now).

[BT]

<!--quoteo(post=69521:date=Nov 19 2009, 01:12 AM:name=Gad)-->QUOTE (Gad @ Nov 19 2009, 01:12 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=69514:date=Nov 18 2009, 08:58 PM:name=BT)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BT @ Nov 18 2009, 08:58 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->Not ONE person picked after him in the first round is a sure fire major leaguer. There are better prospects than Colvin, picked after him, to be sure. Again. This happens all the fucking time.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Not trying to take sides or split hairs but both of this year's ROY's came from the 2006 draft and were selected after Colvin.. Bailey and Coughlan both...
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->


But they weren't taken in the first round, which was my point. However, it actually COMPLETELY proves my point as Coghlan was a supplemental first rounder (which means EVERY team passed on him), and Bailey was a 6th rounder, which means there was 187 "absurd" picks taken in front of him. Furthermore, neither of these guys were considered top 5 prospects on their own team, let alone in their respective leagues, going into this year, so KB's write off of Vitters as a "mistake" before he is old enough to drink is in itself absurd. Weiters is definitly a better prospect than Vitters right now, but again, he is 3 years older than Vitters. Let's see what happens before we stick a fork in him

[Butcher]

I think part of the reason people dislike the Colvin pick is that it seems like Hendry took him because he went to his alma mater and it was some sort of emotional decision. Whether that's really true, who knows. Also, I don't think he made any team's list as a first-rounder (which seems to lend credence to the idea that Hendry drafted him early because of emotional ties).

Whatever. Wilkens has obviously done something right. Plenty of people are talking about our farm system again, which hasn't happened in a while. Whether we develop these guys or use them to make some solid trades, this is a very good thing.

[1060Ivy]

<!--quoteo(post=69468:date=Nov 18 2009, 04:05 PM:name=Butcher)-->QUOTE (Butcher @ Nov 18 2009, 04:05 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->The more I hear about this kid, the more I want to see how he develops. Either that, or I want something spectacular in return.

I know he's been discussed a lot in the minor league thread, but he's only 19 and he's our top prospect (and not just because we're the Cubs).

<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <!--quotec-->PJ (Chicago Il)
How has Starlin Castro risen from mid of pack prospect to top prospect..lack of depth in Cubs system or what??


Jim Callis
(2:57 PM)
<b>He's that talented. The Cubs are amassing some nice depth in their system, too.</b><!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Man, that's good to hear.

Fuck Granderson for Castro. Fuck that trade all night long.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Agree that I wouldn't include Castro for Granderson but I believe the only guy who was including him and Carlos Marmol in a trade for Curtis was Phil Rogers who's baseball acumen is on par with most final stage alzheimer's patients.

Regarding the status of the Cubs farm system, my understanding is that it is still one of the weakest in the MLB ready prospect area but the system appears better stocked with young prospects who still years in the minors.

<i>"Most of Chicago's best farmhands are at least a couple of years away from making an impact in the major leagues" Baseball America</i>

[Runnys]

Would we want Granderson if we didn't have to move Castro or Vitters? Or do you think any deal for Granderson would have to start with Castro or Vitters?

[bz]

<!--quoteo(post=69539:date=Nov 19 2009, 10:12 AM:name=Butcher)-->QUOTE (Butcher @ Nov 19 2009, 10:12 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->I think part of the reason people dislike the Colvin pick is that it seems like Hendry took him because he went to his alma mater and it was some sort of emotional decision. Whether that's really true, who knows. Also, I don't think he made any team's list as a first-rounder (which seems to lend credence to the idea that Hendry drafted him early because of emotional ties).

Whatever. Wilkens has obviously done something right. Plenty of people are talking about our farm system again, which hasn't happened in a while. Whether we develop these guys or use them to make some solid trades, this is a very good thing.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

That and he seemed to fit a specific pedigree of player that Hendry goes after: toolsy, athletic, etc. I know I and a few others were annoyed that he picked someone who is an athlete rather than a baseball player (even though the type of player I wanted wasn't really available at that point in the draft.)

[Scarey]

<!--quoteo(post=69569:date=Nov 19 2009, 01:00 PM:name=bz)-->QUOTE (bz @ Nov 19 2009, 01:00 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=69539:date=Nov 19 2009, 10:12 AM:name=Butcher)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Butcher @ Nov 19 2009, 10:12 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->I think part of the reason people dislike the Colvin pick is that it seems like Hendry took him because he went to his alma mater and it was some sort of emotional decision. Whether that's really true, who knows. Also, I don't think he made any team's list as a first-rounder (which seems to lend credence to the idea that Hendry drafted him early because of emotional ties).

Whatever. Wilkens has obviously done something right. Plenty of people are talking about our farm system again, which hasn't happened in a while. Whether we develop these guys or use them to make some solid trades, this is a very good thing.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

That and he seemed to fit a specific pedigree of player that Hendry goes after: toolsy, athletic, etc. I know I and a few others were annoyed that he picked someone who is an athlete rather than a baseball player (even though the type of player I wanted wasn't really available at that point in the draft.)
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->


I don't get why you guys think that as soon as the word tool comes up, the player tagged with the word is not a baseball player. You realize that Starlin Castro is an athlete and a toolsy player right?

In fact, a player with a lot of tools is the very definition of a baseball player. The tools are hitting for average, hitting for power, defensive ability, arm strength, and speed. The only thing that should really be added to the tools list is plate discipline. So, if your beef is that the players Hendry drafts don't have good plate discipline, that's somewhat legitimate especially if you're referring to Colvin.

[Butcher]

<!--quoteo(post=69574:date=Nov 19 2009, 12:16 PM:name=Scarey)-->QUOTE (Scarey @ Nov 19 2009, 12:16 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=69569:date=Nov 19 2009, 01:00 PM:name=bz)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (bz @ Nov 19 2009, 01:00 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=69539:date=Nov 19 2009, 10:12 AM:name=Butcher)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Butcher @ Nov 19 2009, 10:12 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->I think part of the reason people dislike the Colvin pick is that it seems like Hendry took him because he went to his alma mater and it was some sort of emotional decision. Whether that's really true, who knows. Also, I don't think he made any team's list as a first-rounder (which seems to lend credence to the idea that Hendry drafted him early because of emotional ties).

Whatever. Wilkens has obviously done something right. Plenty of people are talking about our farm system again, which hasn't happened in a while. Whether we develop these guys or use them to make some solid trades, this is a very good thing.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

That and he seemed to fit a specific pedigree of player that Hendry goes after: toolsy, athletic, etc. I know I and a few others were annoyed that he picked someone who is an athlete rather than a baseball player (even though the type of player I wanted wasn't really available at that point in the draft.)
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->


I don't get why you guys think that as soon as the word tool comes up, the player tagged with the word is not a baseball player. You realize that Starlin Castro is an athlete and a toolsy player right?

In fact, a player with a lot of tools is the very definition of a baseball player. The tools are hitting for average, hitting for power, defensive ability, arm strength, and speed. The only thing that should really be added to the tools list is plate discipline. So, if your beef is that the players Hendry drafts don't have good plate discipline, that's somewhat legitimate especially if you're referring to Colvin.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think the failing is that certain scouts see an athlete and think that because they are athletic, they can be developed into a "baseball player." A great athlete isn't always a great hitter. Being a great hitter with a great batting eye is a very specific skill set that has very little to do with how athletic you are.

I'm not saying you can't be both. And if you CAN be both, great. But I'd rather have a mildly athletic player who can sting the ball, then a great athlete that we hope can develop into a hitter.

[kbwsb]

Scarey, there tend to be scouts who like "athletes," and there tend to be scouts who like guys who aren't as specifically "athletic," but have skills that are unique to the game of baseball.

When guys like Hendry and Gary Hughes were making their bones, there were some stars like the great Dave Winfield who were just plain "athletes;" he was drafted by the NBA and could have easily starred in basketball, he was courted by the NFL, he could do anything. He chose baseball, and kicked ass. So did Bo Jackson, and guys like that did things on a ball field that were seen as simply outlandish, freakish almost (like Jackson throwing out a runner on a line-drive throw from the wall). Teams suddenly wanted them.

Also in that era, speed was greatly coveted, and you didn't have to be a great hitter to help out your team if you could steal bases, chase down previously uncatchable fly balls, etc.

Many scouts since then have had the idea of "Draft the good athletes, and we'll MAKE 'em into ballplayers." Many of us on the site think that Hendry and Hughes fall into that camp.
Indeed, our 1st-round pick THIS year is yet another perfect example of that way of thinking.

I personally tend to disagree with it, simply because the game of baseball demands such a unique skill set, that even some of the world's most magnificent athletes (think Michael Jordan, Jim Thorpe, Deion Sanders) can't master these unique skills, while a lot of non-athletic-type guys (John Kruk, Yogi Berra, Dustin Pedroia) become great stars.

You can make a case for both sides, I suppose. But there sure are a lot of truly magnificent "athletes" (Corey Patterson, Felix Pie) who never truly learned to play baseball correctly, in recent Cub history.

[BT]

<!--quoteo(post=69580:date=Nov 19 2009, 12:39 PM:name=KBwsb)-->QUOTE (KBwsb @ Nov 19 2009, 12:39 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->Scarey, there tend to be scouts who like "athletes," and there tend to be scouts who like guys who aren't as specifically "athletic," but have skills that are unique to the game of baseball.

When guys like Hendry and Gary Hughes were making their bones, there were some stars like the great Dave Winfield who were just plain "athletes;" he was drafted by the NBA and could have easily starred in basketball, he was courted by the NFL, he could do anything. He chose baseball, and kicked ass. So did Bo Jackson, and guys like that did things on a ball field that were seen as simply outlandish, freakish almost (like Jackson throwing out a runner on a line-drive throw from the wall). Teams suddenly wanted them.

Also in that era, speed was greatly coveted, and you didn't have to be a great hitter to help out your team if you could steal bases, chase down previously uncatchable fly balls, etc.

Many scouts since then have had the idea of "Draft the good athletes, and we'll MAKE 'em into ballplayers." Many of us on the site think that Hendry and Hughes fall into that camp.
Indeed, our 1st-round pick THIS year is yet another perfect example of that way of thinking.

I personally tend to disagree with it, simply because the game of baseball demands such a unique skill set, that even some of the world's most magnificent athletes (think Michael Jordan, Jim Thorpe, Deion Sanders) can't master these unique skills, while a lot of non-athletic-type guys (John Kruk, Yogi Berra) become great stars.

You can make a case for both sides, I suppose. But there sure are a lot of truly magnificent "athletes" (Corey Patterson, Felix Pie) who never truly learned to play baseball correctly, in recent Cub history.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

See, I agree with most of this. That's why arguing with you is so frustrating.

[Scarey]

<!--quoteo(post=69580:date=Nov 19 2009, 01:39 PM:name=KBwsb)-->QUOTE (KBwsb @ Nov 19 2009, 01:39 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->Scarey, there tend to be scouts who like "athletes," and there tend to be scouts who like guys who aren't as specifically "athletic," but have skills that are unique to the game of baseball.

When guys like Hendry and Gary Hughes were making their bones, there were some stars like the great Dave Winfield who were just plain "athletes;" he was drafted by the NBA and could have easily starred in basketball, he was courted by the NFL, he could do anything. He chose baseball, and kicked ass. So did Bo Jackson, and guys like that did things on a ball field that were seen as simply outlandish, freakish almost (like Jackson throwing out a runner on a line-drive throw from the wall). Teams suddenly wanted them.

Also in that era, speed was greatly coveted, and you didn't have to be a great hitter to help out your team if you could steal bases, chase down previously uncatchable fly balls, etc.

Many scouts since then have had the idea of "Draft the good athletes, and we'll MAKE 'em into ballplayers." Many of us on the site think that Hendry and Hughes fall into that camp.
Indeed, our 1st-round pick THIS year is yet another perfect example of that way of thinking.

I personally tend to disagree with it, simply because the game of baseball demands such a unique skill set, that even some of the world's most magnificent athletes (think Michael Jordan, Jim Thorpe, Deion Sanders) can't master these unique skills, while a lot of non-athletic-type guys (John Kruk, Yogi Berra) become great stars.

You can make a case for both sides, I suppose. But there sure are a lot of truly magnificent "athletes" (Corey Patterson, Felix Pie) who never truly learned to play baseball correctly, in recent Cub history.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

First of all, I never contended that baseball officials and the Cubs organization specifically do not draft athletes. What I contended is that a player that "has tools" is not necessarily an athlete. In fact, if the only tools the player has is hitting for average, hitting for power, and defensive ability, those are tools SPECIFIC to only baseball. I just think it's crap that people hear that someone like Tyler Colvin is a 5-tool player and automatically assume he has almost no baseball ability.

Also, you think that Felix Pie was an athlete first and a baseball player second despite the fact that he grew up in an area(Dominican Republic) where kids eat, sleep, and breathe baseball their entire lives? The fact that he's fast works against him somehow?

Finally, I brought up Starlin Castro before. People haven't said it much, but the fact of the matter is he is a 5 tool player. He definitely hits for average, he is projected to hit for power, he is a good defender, has a great arm, and has good speed/runs the bases well. That's a 5 tool player. Does that mean he's an athlete? Not necessarily. Does that mean he's doomed to fail? Not at all. It just means that he is a well rounded player and projects to excell in all of those particular facets of the game.

[Coach]

<!--QuoteBegin-"Jayson Stark"+-->QUOTE ("Jayson Stark")<!--QuoteEBegin-->One scout's review of the best player he saw in the Arizona Fall League -- 19-year-old Cubs middle-infield stud Starlin Castro: "A young Hanley Ramirez."<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

[Dirk]

<!--quoteo(post=69617:date=Nov 19 2009, 03:43 PM:name=Coach)-->QUOTE (Coach @ Nov 19 2009, 03:43 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--QuoteBegin-"Jayson Stark"+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE ("Jayson Stark")<!--QuoteEBegin-->One scout's review of the best player he saw in the Arizona Fall League -- 19-year-old Cubs middle-infield stud Starlin Castro: "A young Hanley Ramirez."<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I know some people have scoffed at the Hanley Ramirez comparisons because of Castro's lack of power, but Ramirez hit a grand total of 29 hrs in about 400 minor league games. Just sayin.

[jstraw]

<!--quoteo(post=69622:date=Nov 19 2009, 03:30 PM:name=Dirk)-->QUOTE (Dirk @ Nov 19 2009, 03:30 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=69617:date=Nov 19 2009, 03:43 PM:name=Coach)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Coach @ Nov 19 2009, 03:43 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--QuoteBegin-"Jayson Stark"+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE ("Jayson Stark")<!--QuoteEBegin-->One scout's review of the best player he saw in the Arizona Fall League -- 19-year-old Cubs middle-infield stud Starlin Castro: "A young Hanley Ramirez."<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I know some people have scoffed at the Hanley Ramirez comparisons because of Castro's lack of power, but Ramirez hit a grand total of 29 hrs in about 400 minor league games. Just sayin.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

I don't care about the comparisons because if Starlin has everything BUT power, I'm fine with that.

[kbwsb]

<!--quoteo(post=69581:date=Nov 19 2009, 12:56 PM:name=BT)-->QUOTE (BT @ Nov 19 2009, 12:56 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=69580:date=Nov 19 2009, 12:39 PM:name=KBwsb)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (KBwsb @ Nov 19 2009, 12:39 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->Scarey, there tend to be scouts who like "athletes," and there tend to be scouts who like guys who aren't as specifically "athletic," but have skills that are unique to the game of baseball.

When guys like Hendry and Gary Hughes were making their bones, there were some stars like the great Dave Winfield who were just plain "athletes;" he was drafted by the NBA and could have easily starred in basketball, he was courted by the NFL, he could do anything. He chose baseball, and kicked ass. So did Bo Jackson, and guys like that did things on a ball field that were seen as simply outlandish, freakish almost (like Jackson throwing out a runner on a line-drive throw from the wall). Teams suddenly wanted them.

Also in that era, speed was greatly coveted, and you didn't have to be a great hitter to help out your team if you could steal bases, chase down previously uncatchable fly balls, etc.

Many scouts since then have had the idea of "Draft the good athletes, and we'll MAKE 'em into ballplayers." Many of us on the site think that Hendry and Hughes fall into that camp.
Indeed, our 1st-round pick THIS year is yet another perfect example of that way of thinking.

I personally tend to disagree with it, simply because the game of baseball demands such a unique skill set, that even some of the world's most magnificent athletes (think Michael Jordan, Jim Thorpe, Deion Sanders) can't master these unique skills, while a lot of non-athletic-type guys (John Kruk, Yogi Berra) become great stars.

You can make a case for both sides, I suppose. But there sure are a lot of truly magnificent "athletes" (Corey Patterson, Felix Pie) who never truly learned to play baseball correctly, in recent Cub history.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

See, I agree with most of this. That's why arguing with you is so frustrating.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
BT, I don't disagree with you on most things. My main problem is that I don't take the time to perhaps properly explain myself.
My above post took a long time to compose, and indeed, my mind tends to "think" in Big Picture terms. However, I found out a long time ago, that on chatrooms like this one, people are often bored by long posts, and prefer quick, snappy posts, a kind of "shorthand." Guys like tom have even <i>specificall</i>y said, "Well whatever, but I'm not even gonna read that long post."

So I usually just write the absolute minimum; the only problem with that is I think I come across as much more clipped (and even sarcastic) than I really mean to be.