cubs close to trading corey to the o's

[stitchface]

Is there any indication Bruce that the organization understands the mistakes they made with Corey? Or do they pretty well place the blame on his shoulders? As UK points out, they seem to be on the same path with Pie although I think Felix outperformed Corey at West Tenn. I understand if you don't want to answer this publicly but I think many of us here are concerned about the apparent lack of direction and planning with this organization.

 

I don't know if "lack of direction and planning" are fair terms, and I'm not defending them here. The Cubs made it their plan to draft a lot of pitchers over the last several years. On the major-league level this winter, it was Hendry's plan to get a leadoff hitter, pursue Furcal, upgrade the bullpen and upgrade the bench. Had he gotten Furcal, he still would have pursued Pierre. I suppose you can throw "improve fundamentals" and "catch the ball" as part of the plan, like them or not. As we know, Furcal didn't come here, but I don't think it was for lack of planning or effort or direction on the Cubs' part. He took more money over the short term with the chance to test free agency again after three years instead of five or six.

We can agree or disagree with a team's plan. But the Cubs are pretty diligent about their planning. Let's remember, too, that there are 29 other teams out there and market forces at work. And if not for the 2005 success of the White Sox and their perceived good off-season, would this whole planning thing be an issue? I don't know.

 

What's disturbing is the apparent lack of understanding of the White Sox success. But I was referring more to developing players. The Cubs haven't had much success and don't appear to be changing their gameplan with regard to players earning promotions or the types of players they draft (and I will confess I know less about this than other posters). While they have drafted lots of pitchers recently, they haven't gotten a lot of success from those pitchers in the major leagues (that may be unfair since they do have three homegrown starters) but of the recent drafts and the highly touted prospects, we have seen little in the way of production. Amongst position players, the Cubs have only Cedeno to show for player development. Murton looks like one good move but I am feeling like they may have been more lucky than good.

[noisesquared]

just to be clear, i'm not saying that this whole thing is going to ruin eric's career. i just think it will affect his opinion of the organization.

 

Well, at least at the rate they're going, neither Hendry nor Baker will be around to jerk Eric around when he finally makes the big club.

[CheeseHead Cubs Fan]

I do believe Corey will be traded, but this alleged trade to the Orioles is nowhere near as close as what you might have read coming out of Baltimore today. Doesn't mean it won't happen, but there are other teams with whom the Cubs are talking.

 

How do you feel the rest of the Baseball world feels about Corey? It seems as though us Cubs fans tend to value our own players more than they are worth.

 

In other words, do you see Corey being traded for a prospect or something similar? I personally don't expect solid major league talent in return for our streaky fake leadoff hitter.

[Bruce Miles]

Is there any indication Bruce that the organization understands the mistakes they made with Corey? Or do they pretty well place the blame on his shoulders? As UK points out, they seem to be on the same path with Pie although I think Felix outperformed Corey at West Tenn. I understand if you don't want to answer this publicly but I think many of us here are concerned about the apparent lack of direction and planning with this organization.

 

I don't know if "lack of direction and planning" are fair terms, and I'm not defending them here. The Cubs made it their plan to draft a lot of pitchers over the last several years. On the major-league level this winter, it was Hendry's plan to get a leadoff hitter, pursue Furcal, upgrade the bullpen and upgrade the bench. Had he gotten Furcal, he still would have pursued Pierre. I suppose you can throw "improve fundamentals" and "catch the ball" as part of the plan, like them or not. As we know, Furcal didn't come here, but I don't think it was for lack of planning or effort or direction on the Cubs' part. He took more money over the short term with the chance to test free agency again after three years instead of five or six.

We can agree or disagree with a team's plan. But the Cubs are pretty diligent about their planning. Let's remember, too, that there are 29 other teams out there and market forces at work. And if not for the 2005 success of the White Sox and their perceived good off-season, would this whole planning thing be an issue? I don't know.

 

What's disturbing is the apparent lack of understanding of the White Sox success. But I was referring more to developing players. The Cubs haven't had much success and don't appear to be changing their gameplan with regard to players earning promotions or the types of players they draft (and I will confess I know less about this than other posters). While they have drafted lots of pitchers recently, they haven't gotten a lot of success from those pitchers in the major leagues (that may be unfair since they do have three homegrown starters) but of the recent drafts and the highly touted prospects, we have seen little in the way of production. Amongst position players, the Cubs have only Cedeno to show for player development. Murton looks like one good move but I am feeling like they may have been more lucky than good.

 

These are good points. I give the Cubs only half-credit for Murton since he came up in the Boston organization. But you're right _ on position players, they haven't had much success. As far as pitchers go, Wood, Prior, Zambrano, Wuertz, Ohman, Maddux (JUST KIDDING HERE) all have had various levels of success. I don't know how the Cubs compare in this regard with other teams and their pitching prospects.

There's no doubt they have to do a better job with position players. It's only been recently in this regime that positon players have been targeted (Ryan Harvey, Eric Patterson, Brian Dopirak) up high. This will be a telling year in all of their development.

[Bruce Miles]

I do believe Corey will be traded, but this alleged trade to the Orioles is nowhere near as close as what you might have read coming out of Baltimore today. Doesn't mean it won't happen, but there are other teams with whom the Cubs are talking.

 

How do you feel the rest of the Baseball world feels about Corey? It seems as though us Cubs fans tend to value our own players more than they are worth.

 

In other words, do you see Corey being traded for a prospect or something similar? I personally don't expect solid major league talent in return for our streaky fake leadoff hitter.

 

I don't think Corey's stock is that high in the baseball world right now. No, the Cubs won't get a whole lot in return for him.

[Bruce Miles]

I do believe Corey will be traded, but this alleged trade to the Orioles is nowhere near as close as what you might have read coming out of Baltimore today. Doesn't mean it won't happen, but there are other teams with whom the Cubs are talking.

 

How do you feel the rest of the Baseball world feels about Corey? It seems as though us Cubs fans tend to value our own players more than they are worth.

 

In other words, do you see Corey being traded for a prospect or something similar? I personally don't expect solid major league talent in return for our streaky fake leadoff hitter.

 

I don't think Corey's stock is that high in the baseball world right now. No, the Cubs won't get a whole lot in return for him.

[RynoRules]

of course eric's going to give the 'business is business' line, but i think it's crazy to assume that what happened to corey doesn't at least cross eric's mind. i don't know if it's possible for eric to not harbor some ill feelings toward the cubs.

 

If he cannot learn to deal with that sort of issue and concentrate on himself then he has bigger problems.

[Bruce Miles]

Sorry about the double post above. Got a little overzealous there.

 

I might add that the course of history might have been different, too, had David Kelton stuck with third base or the Cubs not traded Eric Hinske, two position players from their 1998 draft (same draft as Corey).

[RynoRules]

of course eric's going to give the 'business is business' line, but i think it's crazy to assume that what happened to corey doesn't at least cross eric's mind. i don't know if it's possible for eric to not harbor some ill feelings toward the cubs.

 

Did the Cubs organization really treat Corey that poorly? I don't think they did...

 

Yeah, the only thing Corey can really claim mistreatment from is the fans.

 

 

I don't know if it qualifies as mistreatment, but he was grossly misused, and then scapegoated. He and Walker have been the Sammy and Farnsworth of 2005/2006. And in many ways, this all goes back to when Dusty inexplicably pulled him aside on the field for what looked like lesson time, after he won a game with a walkoff homer. Prior to that, he was still doing some things right.

 

That's a good point. I don't think Eric will see it that way, but I think that's the way it is. The Cubs brought back guys like Neifi, Rusch, and others who were the real problem (not producing with too much PT) and seem to have a crusade to get rid of 2 perceived problems, at any cost, in Patterson and Walker, just like Sosa and Farnsworth before them.

 

I really don't see any argument that Corey was mistreated. After his performance, he had no business being recalled from AAA. Whatever his fate, Corey brought it on himself with poor performance. To blame Cubs management would be ridiculous.

 

Agreed. I don't know how you blame Hendry or Dusty for Cory's poor performance. He was doing just fine under the Hendry/Dusty regime in 03' until he was injured. He was mediocre in 04', and stunk up the joint last year.

[stitchface]

I won't keep copying in here, but part of my frustration is with the bullpen signings and the re-signing of Rusch. I find it difficult to accept that after drafting all these arms, the Cubs aren't able to develop players who can manage these roles. Ohman is a feel good story though and I retain high hopes for Wuertz - particularly if the Cubs can get rid of Baker. Similar arguments can be made for using Fontenot instead of Perez. It almost seems as if the Cubs just don't know what to do with players once they are ready for a major league role.

[goonys evil twin]

And if not for the 2005 success of the White Sox and their perceived good off-season, would this whole planning thing be an issue? I don't know.

 

I just wrote a 5 paragraph rant describing my reasons for questioning the existence of and their commitment to any sort of plan, both in the big picture and for smaller details. And I've felt this way long before the White Sox had their success. It felt good to write it down, but deleting it will probably serve to reduce the unnecessary bickering about the points within that rant.

 

Needless to say, I think they've strayed from the plan, have completely rewritten major parts, and when all is said and done, absolutely bungled a fantastic opportunity.

[stitchface]

And if not for the 2005 success of the White Sox and their perceived good off-season, would this whole planning thing be an issue? I don't know.

 

I just wrote a 5 paragraph rant describing my reasons for questioning the existence of and their commitment to any sort of plan, both in the big picture and for smaller details. And I've felt this way long before the White Sox had their success. It felt good to write it down, but deleting it will probably serve to reduce the unnecessary bickering about the points within that rant.

 

Needless to say, I think they've strayed from the plan, have completely rewritten major parts, and when all is said and done, absolutely bungled a fantastic opportunity.

 

Without reading your rant, I am sure I agree with it goony. Of course, the Sox had seemingly also blown a golden opportunity before last year. My problem with management is that they are not leaders. They don't seem to think for themselves. They are always chasing something or following someone else's plan. Leaders don't follow - they innovate. Williams has become an innovator and he got lucky for his efforts. The cubs seem almost paralyzed by their lack of creativity and willingness to take risks.

[craig]

...He had a good, but not a great year at West Tenn, and despite being very young for the League, the flaws were there that are still there.

 

To me, there's no doubt in my mind the Cubs made a mistake by rushing him. ...

 

UK, you note that Corey had flaws after AA that remain today, and that they were wrong to promote him when he had flaws.

 

Some guys have non-correctible flaws. Most every prospect has some flaws, whether correctible or not.

 

Is a team "rushing" a guy every time they promote a player with flaws? Obviously not, else hardly anybody would ever leave A-ball.

 

Prior had flaws (slow delivery, poor at holding runners), but they promoted him anyway. Z had lots of flaws (wildness, obviously, and emotional composure), but they promoted him anyway and he was slowly able to improve, regardless of level. When is it "rushing" to promote a guy with a flaw, and when is it perfectly appropriate to promote a guy despite flaws and figure he'll need to continue to work on them at the next level just like he'd need to at the current level?

 

Corey has achieved varying levels of success despite his difficulty in reading pitches, which is his limiting flaw IMO. Would you have kept him at AA indefinitely? Perhaps to this very day, since he hasn't corrected it yet? (And has had not less but more motivation, if it were in fact a correctible problem...)

Edited January 6, 2006 by craig

[abuck1220]

of course eric's going to give the 'business is business' line, but i think it's crazy to assume that what happened to corey doesn't at least cross eric's mind. i don't know if it's possible for eric to not harbor some ill feelings toward the cubs.

 

If he cannot learn to deal with that sort of issue and concentrate on himself then he has bigger problems.

 

why? where did i say it would affect his play on the field? all i'm saying is that if you perceived that an organization screwed over a family member, would you think very highly of that organization?

[Bruce Miles]

I won't keep copying in here, but part of my frustration is with the bullpen signings and the re-signing of Rusch. I find it difficult to accept that after drafting all these arms, the Cubs aren't able to develop players who can manage these roles. Ohman is a feel good story though and I retain high hopes for Wuertz - particularly if the Cubs can get rid of Baker. Similar arguments can be made for using Fontenot instead of Perez. It almost seems as if the Cubs just don't know what to do with players once they are ready for a major league role.

 

Wuertz was way overused, no doubt about it. I think he still has good potential. I'm not sure where the Cubs "rank" in developing their own arms for these roles. Do many other teams do it better? I don't know. Or do other teams go outside and pick up veteran guys to pitch the seventh and eighth innings? I don't have the research in front of me. Farnsworth certainly looked to be one of those guys, at least for a while. It should be loads of fun watching him deal with New York and all of its pressures and pleasures. We'll see how that turns out.

 

As much of a flashpoint as Neifi has been on this board, I don't think Fontenot would have been better. That said, there is no way in the world I would have given Neifi a two year contract worth $5 million, and I told the Cubs that (they told me I was entitled to my opinion).

 

You raise great points, concerns and questions. I wish I had better answers.

[stitchface]

I won't keep copying in here, but part of my frustration is with the bullpen signings and the re-signing of Rusch. I find it difficult to accept that after drafting all these arms, the Cubs aren't able to develop players who can manage these roles. Ohman is a feel good story though and I retain high hopes for Wuertz - particularly if the Cubs can get rid of Baker. Similar arguments can be made for using Fontenot instead of Perez. It almost seems as if the Cubs just don't know what to do with players once they are ready for a major league role.

 

Wuertz was way overused, no doubt about it. I think he still has good potential. I'm not sure where the Cubs "rank" in developing their own arms for these roles. Do many other teams do it better? I don't know. Or do other teams go outside and pick up veteran guys to pitch the seventh and eighth innings? I don't have the research in front of me. Farnsworth certainly looked to be one of those guys, at least for a while. It should be loads of fun watching him deal with New York and all of its pressures and pleasures. We'll see how that turns out.

 

As much of a flashpoint as Neifi has been on this board, I don't think Fontenot would have been better. That said, there is no way in the world I would have given Neifi a two year contract worth $5 million, and I told the Cubs that (they told me I was entitled to my opinion).

 

You raise great points, concerns and questions. I wish I had better answers.

 

Not better, but $2 million cheaper. The Angels and White Sox stand as teams that developed devastating bullpens without spending a lot of money. The Angels internally and the Sox with spare parts. Turnbow would be another good example. I can't think of too many big-name relievers who have moved as free agents and had stellar performance - Wagner would be one. Foulke in 2004. Both closers though. Its an interesting question - however, I would say that if the Cubs did this better than other teams, they would have a huge advantage given their already formidable financial standing.

[JeffH]

The rushing of Patterson was not in the jump from Lansing to West Tennessee - that was an aggressive promotion, but reasonable and defensible.

 

If anything, what may have hurt him was moving to the majors so quickly with so little time at AAA, especially after he performed poorly in his brief time there.

[goonys evil twin]

When is it "rushing" to promote a guy with a flaw, and when is it perfectly appropriate to promote a guy despite flaws and figure he'll need to continue to work on them at the next level just like he'd need to at the current level?

 

Would you have kept him at AA indefinitely?

 

I think the answer was pretty clear here, it's not that difficult to look back and think of a better strategy. First, you send him to Daytona before AA. That's the entire 2000 season. You try and get him to duplicate or approach his MWL numbers in the FSL. He doesn't sniff Wrigley yet. Then comes 2001 in the southern league. In September you give him a call-up to let him see what it's like. 2002 starts off with a chance in spring training. If all goes well, his swing looks good and he is comfortable, he gets a shot at making the club at 22 years old. If not, start him in AAA, the call him up later.

 

And on top of this, you address the need to take walks, from the top of the organization on down, you don't publicly laugh at the concept of walks being good for hitters.

 

This would have been a much more realistic career path for Corey, and doesn't come close to your "keep him in AA indefinitely" scenario. The worst thing to do with a guy who had success despite flaws would be to let him skip levels, and then be yoyod in the majors, and have his role switched routinely.

[UK1679666180]

...He had a good, but not a great year at West Tenn, and despite being very young for the League, the flaws were there that are still there.

 

To me, there's no doubt in my mind the Cubs made a mistake by rushing him. ...

 

UK, you note that Corey had flaws after AA that remain today, and that they were wrong to promote him when he had flaws.

 

Some guys have non-correctible flaws. Most every prospect has some flaws, whether correctible or not.

 

Is a team "rushing" a guy every time they promote a player with flaws? Obviously not, else hardly anybody would ever leave A-ball.

 

Prior had flaws (slow delivery, poor at holding runners), but they promoted him anyway. Z had lots of flaws (wildness, obviously), but they promoted him anyway and he was slowly able to improve, regardless of level. When is it "rushing" to promote a guy with a flaw, and when is it perfectly appropriate to promote a guy despite flaws and figure he'll need to continue to work on them at the next level just like he'd need to at the current level?

 

Corey has achieved varying levels of success despite his difficulty in reading pitches, which is his limiting flaw IMO. Would you have kept him at AA indefinitely? Perhaps to this very day, since he hasn't corrected it yet? (And has had not less but more motivation, if it were in fact a correctible problem...)

 

No, teams do it all the time, where they'll promote a player prematurely despite flaws that will become more restrictive the further he advances.

 

Corey's batting eye could be covered up in the lower levels of the minors much easier simply b/c he had a physical advantage over most pitchers having never faced someone with his physical gifts before.

 

But, I don't the see the reason once you get past rookie-ball or short-season that a player should jump. If the Cubs feel a player is properly slotted at Low-A, are they saying they made a mistake by placing him too low in the system or he advanced quickly enough to skip High-A? We both know the jump from High-A to AA is a steep one within itself.

 

I don't understand that reasoning, especially if you have a quality instructor in the system like Zisk who obviously has gained the respect of management simply b/c of the length of his tenure and various roles.

 

I see nothing wrong with taking a more passive approach in terms of making it a priority to not rush a player.

 

But developmentwise, there was a difference between Prior and Patterson, Prior was much more polished at West Tenn compared to Patterson.

 

It's similar as to why I'd be upset if the Cubs had rushed Pie or skipped Daytona after Lansing.

 

To me, it's an unnecc. risk to have a player skip a level, especially when they're as raw as Patterson.

[UK1679666180]

I second the notion that Patterson was rushed. I believe he should have spent at least the first half of the 2000 season at Daytona. He had an OK year at West Tenn, but he no doubt would have benefited from extended time with Richie Zisk.

 

Bruce, have the Cubs ever given any indication (even slightly) that they might've been too aggressive with the pattern they assigned Patterson's ascent to the majors?

 

 

Edit:Poudre already asked this question.

Edited January 6, 2006 by UK

[stitchface]

not to mention that prior's flaws at limiting baserunners are far less detrimental to his success than patterson's lack of control of the strike zone.

[rawaction]

See, I don't buy into the thinking that Corey was so rushed. I think the way he was handled once he got to the ML level was most damaging. Many teams have called up players earlier with lesser talent/batting eyes and had success. But Corey spent 1/2 of 2001 watching Michael Tucker and Delino DeShields play. He spent too much time getting yo-yoed from leadoff to 7th to 2nd to 5th in the lineup. He spent too much time being forced to learn how to bunt better, swing inside out, and being passive.

 

The too many cooks in the kitchen applies to Patterson, IMO.

[UK1679666180]

Corey was 18yo. (I believe his B-Day in the middle to late August of '79 as I'm too lazy to look it up and too much of a nerd not to know it) while he was at Lansing, that's about 2 years younger than the avg. player in the MWL (typically the avg. age has hovered around 21.9). He would've been ahead of the curve had he not skipped Daytona as well as it would not likely effect his ML service time or dented the 40 man roster prematurely.

 

With highly valued commodities like Patterson was in '99 and '00, finishing 2nd to Hamilton of TB as the (subjective) BA's #1 and #2 prospects respectively, it becomes a time when you have to do what will likely have the most positive impact down the road.

 

I'd just like to see them be more cautious.

 

Let it be known, I'd have Gallagher and Patterson both start at Daytona, despite their great Peoria numbers.

[stitchface]

See, I don't buy into the thinking that Corey was so rushed. I think the way he was handled once he got to the ML level was most damaging. Many teams have called up players earlier with lesser talent/batting eyes and had success. But Corey spent 1/2 of 2001 watching Michael Tucker and Delino DeShields play. He spent too much time getting yo-yoed from leadoff to 7th to 2nd to 5th in the lineup. He spent too much time being forced to learn how to bunt better, swing inside out, and being passive.

 

The too many cooks in the kitchen applies to Patterson, IMO.

 

Please name these players younger and with worse eyes that had success. I think you'll find they are very few and very far between.

 

You asked the question more directly UK.

[stitchface]

I would start Eric at Daytona but be ready to move him up given his age and experience.