Originally posted by bjoak:
Totally unfair to Chipper to call Weeks a chipper. Chipper has way more at bats over the last three years, even being the older of the two, and the term seems to indicate that the player is actually GOOD when healthy. Weeks seems to be good more at his whim than whenever he plays. Has to be the only player taken in the first ten rounds that has hit under .240 in two of the last three years. And that's outside of the health issues. Really amazing to me that people are still willing to count on him.
Seems like doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. Definition of insanity.
There are plenty of solid players players in round 5 where Weeks is usually taken. It's funny that pitching in general has been labeled "unpredictable" and thus given less value during drafts IMO, but Week's highly unpredictable outcome is given more credibility.
I think risk/reward plays are to be taken later in the draft. 5th round is too early to be messing around. Too many very good players there who can be counted on. Weeks certainly is intriguing, but haven't we said that the last 3 years? It's entirely possible his September is being overrated (see Loney)
.249 career average spanning 316 games. Small dose. 1 strikeout per game on average. If he plays a full season (big IF), he's sure to strikeout close to 150 times with an average in the .250's. Sure, he could hit 25 homers and steal 30 bases, but in the likelihood he hits .255, where does that place his value? 8th or 9th round at best? And again, that's IF he's healthy the whole year which he hasn't proven yet.
I personally, would much rather take Weeks in the 3rd round after a year in which he proves himself, than take him in the 5th trying to predict a breakout. Just too risky for me.
"Hit a home run - put your head down, drop the bat, run around the bases, because the name on the front is more - a lot more important than the name on the back."
Ryne Sandberg (my favorite player of all-time)