June 5, 2008
Cubs Draft TCU Closer
The Cubs drafted TCU closer Andrew Cashner with the 19th overall pick in the 2008 MLB Draft.
Here is a little video of Cashner in action with TCU.
The thought on Cashner is that he has a fiery fastball (that touches 98 mph), a good slider (see 25-second mark of video) and the ability to develop a changeup and possibly blossom into a starter. Or, be Kyle Farnsworth.
FYI, the Mets selected Reese Havens, a slick-fielding, solid-hitting middle infielder from the University of South Carolina a couple picks after the Cubs selected Cashner. *Sigh*
Labels: Andrew Cashner, Chicago Cubs
Discussion
31 Comments on "Cubs Draft TCU Closer"
#1
Posted by <img src="http://www.blogge, June 5, 2008 5:08 PM
In the words of homer simpson, I have no idea who that is.
#2
Posted by <img src="http://www.blogger.c, June 5, 2008 6:06 PM
Uninspiring. Not sure you draft a closer in Round 1.
#3
Posted by <img src="http://www.blogge, June 5, 2008 6:31 PM
Me neither, but you'd think the #1 draft choice of our favorite team could warrant some page time.
#4
Posted by <img src="http://www.blogger.c, June 5, 2008 7:17 PM
My guess is they're looking for a Chad Cordero type guy who can come up and contribute right away as a reliever.
#5
Posted by <img src="http://www.blogger.c, June 5, 2008 7:19 PM
The Mariners drafted a college closer the very next pick after the Cubs. This is something teams have been doing in recent years (Joey Devine, I believe, was the first, Huston Street, Papelbon, etc.). The goal is to get him to the major leagues and contribute now since the team is planning on contending for the next few years. When that's the case, you're better off drafting a player like Cashner than you are someone who will require 6 years (Vitters) to get to the big leagues.I don't have much of a problem with this pick at all. It's the 41st overall pick I have serious issues with. They wasted that pick on somebody whose future is as, according to multiple scouts, a "utility infielder." That's bullshit!
#6
Posted by <img src="http://www.blogge, June 5, 2008 7:36 PM
keith law disagrees with dusty:Cashner could get to the big leagues this year. On his best days, he has two pitches with a 60 grade. The slider is at 88 mph, and it's an out pitch. And he can run his fastball up to 98 mph. There's a question about his command; can he command his pitches? If he can, he can get to the big leagues right away as an impact relief pitcher.
#7
Posted by <img src="http://www.blogger.c, June 5, 2008 8:44 PM
Two words for Keith Law (whoever the hell that is): Carlos Marmol.Followed by: 26 years old. 56Ks, 37 innings. Can we get a centerfielder who can hit maybe? Or any outfielder that can run and chew gum at same time and hit who isn't imported from an Asian country?Maybe a Ryan Braun, Matt Laporte, Ryan Zimmerman -- a hitter who's a year away thanks to college.I know pitchers always take longer, but maybe a college starter who's maybe only a few years away.Don't see closer being the Cubs most pressing need...especially if Woody is for real. Marmol and he can take care of innings 8-9 for a long time, regardless of who ultimately ends up closing.
#8
Posted by <img src="http://www.blogge, June 5, 2008 9:21 PM
really? you think one solid reliever is enough? or two?using that logic, in 2003, the cubs were set for "a long time" with a rotation of wood, prior, zambrano and clement - and therefore shouldn't have invested in starting pitching?wood is always one pitch or one hot tub visit away from a year off (thanks for jinxing him, by the way). (and i'm not sure, but i don't think braun, zimmerman or laporte were in the draft, and i don't think i would take zimmerman, at this point.)
#9
Posted by <img src="http://www.blogger.c, June 5, 2008 9:54 PM
The Cubs aren't going to re-sign Wood after this year if he stays healthy. They'd be silly to do so. If he stays healthy he'll get about 3/40. No thanks. Not for a relief pitcher. No way.
#10
Posted by <img src="http://www.blogger.c, June 5, 2008 10:00 PM
Let's try it this way.Our farm system sucks. You don't start to rebuild it (so it can compete in Milwaukee, St. Louis, Cincinnati and Houston -- all of whom are churning out more legit ballplayers than the Cubs in our division...and Pittsburgh just may be too) with a closer. You get a closer on waivers if you have to, or in a trade deadline move if you need to.You do it by drafting as many solid position players as you can -- Cubs can certainly start with the OF and SS. And some starting pitching, which we were doing for a while.We can "buy" what we need to fill the holes. We need to start raising Ryan Brauns and Prince Fielders and Jay Bruces.And, Woody or not, Marmol is 26. Mariano Rivera is 40....I think we're good at closer for a long time. They last a long time.
#11
Posted by <img src="http://www.blogger.c, June 5, 2008 10:03 PM
P.S. I love Woody, but Marmol is our closer. Everyone knows it, even Woody. We're just biding time with Big No. 34. Down the stretch it'll be Big Z to Marmol.
#12
Posted by <img src="http://www.blogge, June 5, 2008 10:08 PM
if you say so. but i really don't care how the team is built. really don't. not my money. if they want to trade for a ryne sandberg (which happened), sign an andre dawson to a free-agent contract (which happened), trade for a sammy sosa (which happened), trade for a dlee, aramis, or rick sutcliffe (all of which happened - lee was a trade right?), sign a soriano to a ridiculously large contract (which happened), import a fukudome (which happened) ... well, that's all fine with me.but looking at the current roster, it is apparent the approaches aren't mutually exclusive. there seems to be a healthy blend of homegrown talent and trades and free-agent signings. soto, theriot, cedeno and (eventually) pie ... homegrown. soriano, fukudome, derosa ... free agents. lee, ramirez ... trades.same goes for the staff: z, marmol, wood, gallagher/marshall ... homegrown. lilly, marquis ... free agents. etc.as matt has said, you really seem to want to be a brewers fan.
#13
Posted by <img src="http://www.blogge, June 5, 2008 10:13 PM
oh, this is who keith law is (from wikipedia):Keith Law is a baseball writer for ESPN's Scouts, Inc. He was formerly a writer for Baseball Prospectus and worked in the front office for the Toronto Blue Jays.
#14
Posted by <img src="http://www.blogger.c, June 5, 2008 10:23 PM
No, I just admire how they've built their team. With balance. Now if they didn't have a cheap owner, they could go buy the missing pieces.Cubs, all those examples you cited, have gotten us squat...just as the Yankees stopped getting squat and winning titles when they started buying the biggest (and oldest) name on the market and letting their farm system wither. Red Sox have done it with balance.That's the right model. Grow core talent and buy whatever else you need. It's all about balance.Seriously -- we all talk on this blog about getting another pitcher (Sabathia would be great as he's on the market now) or bat for the second half run...but who and what do we have to offer? Nothing because we have nothing down on the farm.
#15
Posted by <img src="http://www.blogge, June 5, 2008 10:31 PM
as opposed to the brewers? since the brewers were last in the playoffs, the cubs played in the postseason in '84, '89, '98, '03 and '07 - more often than most major league teams. so ... if the only measure of success is a world series, your brewers example doesn't make any sense.would it be ideal to develop their own players, sure... but i just don't care whether aramis is a cub because he was signed as a teenager vs in a trade for a bag of sand with the pirates. same for DLee. same for soriano. same for fukudome. who cares?when it is not my money, i really don't see what difference it makes how the lineup is constructed in the free agent era. at this point, they are the best team in the majors - no matter where the players came from. seems like a good deal to me.
#16
Posted by <img src="http://www.blogger.c, June 5, 2008 10:52 PM
You do it by drafting as many solid position players as you can -- Cubs can certainly start with the OF and SS. And some starting pitching, which we were doing for a while.There's more than one way to build a farm system and the Cubs aren't that interested, nor should they be, in building their farm system. They're interested in getting impact players that can help in the near term. Also, the reality is that a closer has a better chance of being successful in the big leagues than a position player or another pitcher in the first round. Odds are higher that the Cubs get more production from this closer than they'd get from another pick. It's a wise choice if the Cubs keep him in relief. If not, it's one of the dumber picks I've ever seen. The one thing you do not EVER want to buy is a closer. Never ever ever. If this helps prevent them from doing so, they've essentially added another impact bat or starter through free agency because of this draft pick. And, Woody or not, Marmol is 26. Mariano Rivera is 40....I think we're good at closer for a long time. They last a long time.Actually they don't. The average lifespan of a quality closer is about 3 to 5 years. Only the great ones have long careers as closers. You can take a look at the 30 closers in 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008 and you'll see exactly what I mean. P.S. I love Woody, but Marmol is our closer. Everyone knows it, even Woody. We're just biding time with Big No. 34. Down the stretch it'll be Big Z to Marmol.Sorry, no chance if both continue to pitch as they have so far. None at all. Woody has probably done better than Marmol even as good as Marmol has been. The only way Marmol takes over as closer this year is if Wood starts to suck or he gets injured. Won't happen any other way. You just can't rationally argue why it should happen.I just admire how they've [Brewers] built their team. With balance. Now if they didn't have a cheap owner, they could go buy the missing pieces.Really? I think they're close to the laughingstock of baseball with how they've built that team. I've never seen players play as bad on defense as Fielder, Braun, Weeks and Hall do. And eventually LaPorta who is so bad he may make Braun look good defensively. They're so bad defensively it's comical and it's all homegrown comedy. Hardy isn't any good either. That's a comical bunch of youngsters that team has put together and they added another this year in Brett Lawrie. They haven't even learned how clueless they are. The last thing I want is team like that. If you want to admire a team who has developed quality talent, take a look at Cincy (Votto, Cueto, Bruce, Bailey). The way the Brewers have put their team together should be a lesson in what not to do.
#17
Posted by <img src="http://www.blogger.c, June 5, 2008 11:00 PM
Cubs, all those examples you cited, have gotten us squat...just as the Yankees stopped getting squat and winning titles when they started buying the biggest (and oldest) name on the market and letting their farm system wither. Red Sox have done it with balance.Oh, please! All the Yankees have continued to do is be the best team in baseball year in and year out. That's all. So they haven't won it all and we're supposed to suddenly believe the only way you can do it is to have "balance"? Like the Red Sox? Manny, Ortiz, Varitek, Coco Crisp, JD Drew, Lowell, Lugo, Beckett, Matsuzaka, Schilling, Wakefield...all off the top of my head were not homegrown Red Sox prospects. Winning has absolutely nothing at all, not even one itsy tiny little bit, to do with how you acquire the talent. Nothing at all.
#18
Posted by <img src="http://www.blogger.c, June 5, 2008 11:02 PM
Furthermore, our shitty farm system has still brought us, in one way or another, Soto, Lee, and Ramirez. 3 of our biggest offensive contributors this season all a result of our farm system.
#19
Posted by <img src="http://www.blogger.c, June 5, 2008 11:07 PM
so it can compete in Milwaukee, St. Louis, Cincinnati and Houston -- all of whom are churning out more legit ballplayers than the Cubs in our division...and Pittsburgh just may be tooOk, can you name me the one St. Louis and Houston have "churned out"? You want to say Milwaukee and Cincy, fine, but let's get real here. Houston has one of the worst farm systems in all of baseball and so does St. Louis. No knowledgeable analyst has rated either of those teams ahead of the Cubs in recent years. The Cardinals: Pujols, Ankiel, Molina, not one of their starting pitchers have they developed and they probably fucked up Wainright in that he was MLB ready the day they traded JD Drew to Atlanta for him, but it took him a few years for the Cardinals to figure out he was good.The Cardinals draft philosophy has long been to draft college aged players who you can then trade away for MLB talent in a few years. This is a well known fact with them. Duncan works best with project pitchers so the Cardinals take them on frequently and rarely keep their own.
#20
Posted by <img src="http://www.blogge, June 5, 2008 11:25 PM
maddog - you are quite exercised tonight. draft day is hard on everyone...
#21
Posted by <img src="http://www.blogger.c, June 6, 2008 7:15 AM
Maddog, chill first.Then go look at today's box score for your answer to question on Houston.Hunter Pence. Luke Scott (who they traded for Tejada). Oswalt. The killer Bs. They've produced far more productive players for their team than the Cubs have. St. Louis fine, I'll give you a draw there. But you have an amazing ability to miss the bigger point because you fine one piece of minutia that you expound upon to death.And if you actually want to compare what the Brewers and Reds have had to do with their payrolls compared to the corporate owned Cubs....then there's no way you'll ever appreciate what any small market team has done. And if you wouldn't take Braun or Fielder or Hall or LaPorta on the Cubs, well, yes, let's stick with Matt Murton and Felix Pie and Jim Edmonds. Because we already got rid of Corey Patterson.If you think the Cubs have a good farm system -- and a better one that 2/3rds of our division -- you blog that to death. You and maybe one other guy can have a nice chat over that at the Church of Jim Hendry.
#22
Posted by <img src="http://www.blogge, June 6, 2008 8:28 AM
I remember when the Cubs last drafted a MLB-ready arm that went to college.He was so smart. He was so good. He had gigantic calves. He has spent more time in a whirlpool than in baseball spikes. He is Mark Prior.In short, I think the way the Cubs have assembled their team has worked out fine. There are some organizations that are really good at making the most out of their talent and recognizing it out of the draft. The Cubs are not one of those organizations, except for striking it rich with Zambrano.Remember, the MLB draft is nothing like the NFL or NBA draft in that the players are hardly ever a guarantee to make significant impacts in the near future...sometimes ever.I have problem with Cashner, because the Cubs will be able to have him up by the end of the year or next season.
#23
Posted by <img src="http://www.blogge, June 6, 2008 8:29 AM
P.S., I realize that Z probably wasn't drafted.
#24
Posted by <img src="http://www.blogger.c, June 6, 2008 9:23 AM
But you have an amazing ability to miss the bigger point because you fine one piece of minutia that you expound upon to death.When that one point nearly discounts your entire point, yes, I'm going to bring it up. You act as though there is one way to build a quality minor league organization despite the fact that there are several ways to do so. Not only that, you're ignoring the Cubs are in win now mode and couldn't really care less about developing long-term talent. And take a look at the Houston roster right now, dusty. Berkman, Pence and Oswalt are the only impact players from their own organization. I suggest you actually look into things like this before you make wildly inaccurate claims. I might even suggest you check out what some of the minor league analysts have to say about the various organizations as well. I don't mean to sound like an asshole here, but you really don't know what you're talking about here. You just threw team names out there hoping they'd stick, or more likely hoping nobody would challenge you. I did. I didn't do it to make it personal by any means. I'm just trying to get you to either explain yourself in terms that are understandable and rational or see that you've made a mistake. Telling me "this is how you build a minor league system" is not going to cut it. Not even the scouting directors, guys who know more about this than you and I could ever dream of, would say such a thing. And if you actually want to compare what the Brewers and Reds have had to do with their payrolls compared to the corporate owned Cubs....then there's no way you'll ever appreciate what any small market team has done. And if you wouldn't take Braun or Fielder or Hall or LaPorta on the Cubs, well, yes, let's stick with Matt Murton and Felix Pie and Jim Edmonds. Because we already got rid of Corey Patterson.That's weak. I never said I wouldn't take one of them, but I sure as hell wouldn't take all 4 of them and I'm pretty sure I'm not alone on this one, dusty, but if you have evidence to the contrary, please provide it. I'd happily take Fielder over Lee. But that doesn't mean he's some perfect ballplayer either. You can look at this without glorifying another organization, you know, by pointing out their errors just as you enjoy doing with the Cubs. If you think the Cubs have a good farm system -- and a better one that 2/3rds of our division -- you blog that to death. You and maybe one other guy can have a nice chat over that at the Church of Jim Hendry.I never said that, but hey, you're not interested in the truth or any kind of knowledgeable debate anyway so no big deal.
#25
Posted by <img src="http://www.blogger.c, June 6, 2008 10:30 AM
Just so you know, Dusty, Baseball America's organizational rankings prior to this season (April 1st they were published) are as follows for teams in the NL Central:Team (overall ranking)Reds (3)Cardinals (16)Cubs (18)Brewers (21)Pirates (26)Astros (29)So you'll understand the issues I have with many of your comments. Baseball America is far and away the leading source for prospects and the minor leagues and not surprisingly, the Reds are atop the list in the NL Central and the Cubs are much better than you are giving them credit for. Other rankings, particularly by The Hardball Times, which takes a more statistical approach rather than the scouting one that Baseball America does, has the Cubs ranked in the top 10 in all of baseball.
#27
Posted by <img src="http://www.blogger.c, June 6, 2008 12:04 PM
My apologies, Dusty. I came off sounding like an asshole and that was not my initial intention. Hope you'll accept my apology.
#29
Posted by <img src="http://www.blogger.c, June 6, 2008 12:54 PM
Nutsack, the Reds are definitely stacked. I see them as being in the Cubs way the next few years and not the Brewers. To be honest, I'm not that worried about the Brewers (not last year, not this year, not for the foreseeable future), but the Reds young talent is special. If Dusty uses it wisely, that team is going to be a perennial contender for many years.
#30
Posted by <img src="http://www.blogge, June 6, 2008 1:16 PM
I don't have any research in front of me, but I don't know of any Brewers pitching talent on the horizon.They have a real good offense for the foreseeable future with Braun, Fielder and Hart.The Reds have Votto and Bruce in the lineup already, and have Volquez and Bailey set to take over the rotation with Harang.The Astros are in some real trouble.
#31
Posted by <img src="http://www.blogger.c, June 6, 2008 1:45 PM
Maddog, I was trying to be nice and left this one out of my last post, but given your opening sentence to your most recent post:To quote your response to my assertion that closers last a long time: "Actually they don't. The average lifespan of a quality closer is about 3 to 5 years."So you think it is OK that the Cubs just spent their first pick on a guy who is going to have a lifespan of 3-5 years with them and pay that guy first round money.Because, in your words, "I don't have much argument with this pick at all."Checkmate.And you should be careful who you accuse of wildly pulling facts (especially when you selective ignore documented ones...like all the Astros they used to trade for missing pieces) when you're renowned for pulling shit out of your ass...especially your numbers.
Recent Posts
WV23 Chat
cubs Community
- Get your chance to see Bobby Scales!
- Will Rice Voters Shift To Dawson?
- Cubs Rumor Mill: Rich Aurilia, Cubs Minor Leaguer (S)Crap Heap Edition
- Ronnie Woo Woo: The Documentary
-
Community home
Community home
-
Publish a post
Publish a post
-
Recommended
Recommended
-
Audio
Audio
-
Video
Video
Division Rivals
Regional Teams
Leave a comment