Why did the Padres have the #1 pick over the Tigers in 2004?

Talk about the Cardinals minor league baseball
User avatar
Lesson
Grandmaster Flashchat
Posts: 5889
Joined: February 4 10, 4:35 pm

Why did the Padres have the #1 pick over the Tigers in 2004?

Post by Lesson »

The Tigers had 21 less wins than the Padres in 2003. Why did the Padres have the first overall pick over the Tigers?

User avatar
Popeye_Card
GRB's most intelligent & humble poster
Posts: 27280
Joined: April 17 06, 11:25 am

Re: Why did the Padres have the #1 pick over the Tigers in 2

Post by Popeye_Card »

Because it was the NL's turn to pick first.

User avatar
MrCrowesGarden
'Burb Boy
Posts: 19674
Joined: July 9 06, 11:33 am
Location: Out of the Loop

Re: Why did the Padres have the #1 pick over the Tigers in 2

Post by MrCrowesGarden »

They've also since done away with that rule.

User avatar
JoeMcKim
Perennial All-Star
Posts: 7385
Joined: September 8 09, 10:56 pm
Location: South County, St. Louis

Re: Why did the Padres have the #1 pick over the Tigers in 2

Post by JoeMcKim »

Even with the #2 overall pick the Tigers ended up getting a Cy Young/MVP winner in Verlander while the Padres got a guy in Matt Bush who never made it above Advanced A ball for them.

User avatar
go birds
-go birds
Posts: 30404
Joined: February 5 10, 9:54 am

Re: Why did the Padres have the #1 pick over the Tigers in 2

Post by go birds »

Verlander also never killed anyone

User avatar
JoeMcKim
Perennial All-Star
Posts: 7385
Joined: September 8 09, 10:56 pm
Location: South County, St. Louis

Re: Why did the Padres have the #1 pick over the Tigers in 2

Post by JoeMcKim »

Wow, just read Matt Bush's wikipedia page, I didn't know that about him since it just happened like 9-10 days ago. Definitely an idiot who still goes around acting like he just got out of high school and not willing to take responsibility for his actions.

User avatar
cards2468
Hall Of Famer
Posts: 14763
Joined: October 28 06, 11:10 pm
Location: LOVE IT OR LEAVE IT

Re: Why did the Padres have the #1 pick over the Tigers in 2

Post by cards2468 »

Interesting, Matt Bush will likely be the 3rd first overall pick to not reach the bigs. He'll be joining 1966 Mets' first rounder, Steve Chilcott, and Brien Taylor, the Yankees 1991 first rounder. Made me wonder how the Cardinals have done with first overall picks. Then I found that the Cardinals have never had a first overall pick, because the Cardinals don't suck balls like the rest of these teams:

Team # of times to have first overall pick
San Diego Padres 5
New York Mets 5
Seattle Mariners 4
Pittsburgh Pirates 4
Tampa Bay Rays 2
Chicago White Sox 2
Atlanta Braves 2
Houston Astros 2
Tampa Bay Devil Rays 2
Washington Nationals 2
California Angels 2
New York Yankees 2
Minnesota Twins 2
Milwaukee Brewers 1
Baltimore Orioles 1
Arizona Diamondbacks 1
Detroit Tigers 1
Kansas City Royals 1
Philadelphia Phillies 1
Texas Rangers 1
Florida Marlins 1
Washington Senators 1
Chicago Cubs 1
Kansas City Athletics 1

User avatar
JoeMcKim
Perennial All-Star
Posts: 7385
Joined: September 8 09, 10:56 pm
Location: South County, St. Louis

Re: Why did the Padres have the #1 pick over the Tigers in 2

Post by JoeMcKim »

Brien Taylor followed up his failure of a baseball career to become a drug trafficker.

User avatar
Hungary Jack
Mother Earth
Posts: 19543
Joined: July 24 06, 6:03 am
Location: In Cognito

Re: Why did the Padres have the #1 pick over the Tigers in 2

Post by Hungary Jack »

The Padres' selection of Bush in 2004 was controversial from the start. Justin Verlander, Jeff Niemann, Stephen Drew, and Jered Weaver were considered the top talents in the draft, but San Diego did not want to pay the premium bonus any of them would command as the top overall choice.
Oh boy.

User avatar
JoeMcKim
Perennial All-Star
Posts: 7385
Joined: September 8 09, 10:56 pm
Location: South County, St. Louis

Re: Why did the Padres have the #1 pick over the Tigers in 2

Post by JoeMcKim »

If you're not willing to pay the dinero then you should trade down since you're not worthy of taking someone with the #1 overall pick, and if they really wanted Bush he would've still been there for him in the bottom half of the top 10.

Post Reply