Corey Patterson traded to Balt. (per Levine)

[JC]

Is the entire opening day 2003 positional roster now gone or am I missing someone obvious?

 

***

 

JC was referencing the opening day lineup. I was extending it to all the positional players then on the roster.

 

To the extent that it has remained relevant (and strictly in the interest of clarification), my original post, quoted above, sought information regarding the 2003 opening day positional roster, not the line-up. The reason I qualified the roster as "positional" was due to the fact that I was aware of some holdover pitchers on the roster.

[illiniguy]

Goodbye Corey, I don't care about what kind of year you had last year. I will still miss you and will always place a lot of blame on the Cubs for how they rushed you to the big leagues and then yo-yoed you around. I do agree it was time for you to go, but I will always hate most cubs fans for how they treated one of our own. Good luck in Baltimore. Heres hoping you go 30-30 next year.

[Soul]

CPatt deserves at least half the blame.

 

I'm sure he will listen and try to improve a little more in Baltimore, seeing as he is now a newcomer so there's no pretense of Corey being a "veteran" who doesn't need silly things like "winter ball" and "extra practice time."

[cubfan1955]

For all those people who think that Corey has no chance of recovering value, the team has very little blame in his development and the onus for his bad play rests entirely with Corey I pose this question:

 

What will you say if he has a decent season in Baltimore?

 

I'm not one of those people but I'd like to answer anyway...

 

I'd say, "See Dusty, you fool. That's what you get when you don't force a player into a situation in which he isn't equipped to handle".

 

Dusty is so stubborn within the last two years he has ruined two different players by forcing them into situations they couldn't handle. He keeps trying to pound that square peg into a round hole. No matter how much everyone else can see it ain't going to fit he keeps pounding away. Hawkins came over with the rep of being a very good setup man but that he couldn't close so lets force him into that closer role and even when it's obvious to a 3rd grader it isn't working lets do it some more. Same thing with batting Patterson leadoff and then doing it over and over and over. Then have about 8 different people telling him what to do at the same time all the while he's trying to face major league hitting and playing defense, running the bases. He was clearly overloaded last year by mid-season and NO ONE is going to tell me the decline of Corey Patterson is NOT the fault of Dusty Baker! The man is a menace in the dugout and I feel sorry for Murton and Cedeno if they have one bad game. I wonder just how long it will take Dusty to ruin them also.

 

Once we trade Walker for a bag of used balls maybe Hendry can bring back Delino DeShields and then Baker can bench Cedeno and Murton, Ramirez will pull his groin in the WBC and then they can bring Lenny Harris back to play 3rd. Dusty would have an orgasm with DeShields at 2nd, Neifi at SS, Harris at 3rd and then he can send out the French Connection to the outfield. (Marquis, Pierre, and Jacque)

 

When the hell will the madness end? :x

 

I know there was no way Patterson could return to this dugout with this group of coaches and the manager. We got rid of the wrong half of the problem though.

 

Oh, and if he doesn't do well in Baltimore? It's still Dusty's fault for screwing him up beyond repair.

[RockTheIvy]

For all those people who think that Corey has no chance of recovering value, the team has very little blame in his development and the onus for his bad play rests entirely with Corey I pose this question:

 

What will you say if he has a decent season in Baltimore?

 

I'm not one of those people but I'd like to answer anyway...

 

I'd say, "See Dusty, you fool. That's what you get when you don't force a player into a situation in which he isn't equipped to handle".

 

Dusty is so stubborn within the last two years he has ruined two different players by forcing them into situations they couldn't handle. He keeps trying to pound that square peg into a round hole. No matter how much everyone else can see it ain't going to fit he keeps pounding away. Hawkins came over with the rep of being a very good setup man but that he couldn't close so lets force him into that closer role and even when it's obvious to a 3rd grader it isn't working lets do it some more. Same thing with batting Patterson leadoff and then doing it over and over and over. Then have about 8 different people telling him what to do at the same time all the while he's trying to face major league hitting and playing defense, running the bases. He was clearly overloaded last year by mid-season and NO ONE is going to tell me the decline of Corey Patterson is NOT the fault of Dusty Baker! The man is a menace in the dugout and I feel sorry for Murton and Cedeno if they have one bad game. I wonder just how long it will take Dusty to ruin them also.

 

Once we trade Walker for a bag of used balls maybe Hendry can bring back Delino DeShields and then Baker can bench Cedeno and Murton, Ramirez will pull his groin in the WBC and then they can bring Lenny Harris back to play 3rd. Dusty would have an orgasm with DeShields at 2nd, Neifi at SS, Harris at 3rd and then he can send out the French Connection to the outfield. (Marquis, Pierre, and Jacque)

 

When the hell will the madness end? :x

 

I know there was no way Patterson could return to this dugout with this group of coaches and the manager. We got rid of the wrong half of the problem though.

 

Oh, and if he doesn't do well in Baltimore? It's still Dusty's fault for screwing him up beyond repair.

 

While I agree with your "Dusty has no clue" idea, I'm not sure many other manager's would have handled him any better. Rotoworld has said that the Orioles intend to bat him second in the order. Apparently they don't have a clue either. I think the organization and Dusty are partly responsible for Corey's terrible slide, I think it ultimately comes down to Corey. For whatever reason he was unable to acheive continued success with the Chubbs in the big leagues. My problem with blaming the organization, is that if Corey does well in Baltimore, I am in no way ready to praise their ridiculous organization for saving Corey.

[stitchface]

For all those people who think that Corey has no chance of recovering value, the team has very little blame in his development and the onus for his bad play rests entirely with Corey I pose this question:

 

What will you say if he has a decent season in Baltimore?

 

I'm not one of those people but I'd like to answer anyway...

 

I'd say, "See Dusty, you fool. That's what you get when you don't force a player into a situation in which he isn't equipped to handle".

 

Dusty is so stubborn within the last two years he has ruined two different players by forcing them into situations they couldn't handle. He keeps trying to pound that square peg into a round hole. No matter how much everyone else can see it ain't going to fit he keeps pounding away. Hawkins came over with the rep of being a very good setup man but that he couldn't close so lets force him into that closer role and even when it's obvious to a 3rd grader it isn't working lets do it some more. Same thing with batting Patterson leadoff and then doing it over and over and over. Then have about 8 different people telling him what to do at the same time all the while he's trying to face major league hitting and playing defense, running the bases. He was clearly overloaded last year by mid-season and NO ONE is going to tell me the decline of Corey Patterson is NOT the fault of Dusty Baker! The man is a menace in the dugout and I feel sorry for Murton and Cedeno if they have one bad game. I wonder just how long it will take Dusty to ruin them also.

 

Once we trade Walker for a bag of used balls maybe Hendry can bring back Delino DeShields and then Baker can bench Cedeno and Murton, Ramirez will pull his groin in the WBC and then they can bring Lenny Harris back to play 3rd. Dusty would have an orgasm with DeShields at 2nd, Neifi at SS, Harris at 3rd and then he can send out the French Connection to the outfield. (Marquis, Pierre, and Jacque)

 

When the hell will the madness end? :x

 

I know there was no way Patterson could return to this dugout with this group of coaches and the manager. We got rid of the wrong half of the problem though.

 

Oh, and if he doesn't do well in Baltimore? It's still Dusty's fault for screwing him up beyond repair.

 

While I agree with your "Dusty has no clue" idea, I'm not sure many other manager's would have handled him any better. Rotoworld has said that the Orioles intend to bat him second in the order. Apparently they don't have a clue either. I think the organization and Dusty are partly responsible for Corey's terrible slide, I think it ultimately comes down to Corey. For whatever reason he was unable to acheive continued success with the Chubbs in the big leagues. My problem with blaming the organization, is that if Corey does well in Baltimore, I am in no way ready to praise their ridiculous organization for saving Corey.

 

I don't understand why everyone makes this so complicated. Corey couldn't put the bat on the ball and couldn't recognize a hittable pitch. It doesn't matter where he hit in the order.

[goonys evil twin]

I don't understand why everyone makes this so complicated. Corey couldn't put the bat on the ball and couldn't recognize a hittable pitch. It doesn't matter where he hit in the order.

 

I don't understand why you think it's that simple. Corey did put the bat on the ball and did produce acceptable numbers before, and he could do it again, if he was used properly. The only reason spot in the order matters is because not only did they bat him in the spot, but they expected him to do things he could not do, and de-emphasized the things he could do. You can't judge Corey on 2005 alone, when he was truly awful. He was not always awful, or close to it. He has been as productive or more productive than other guys on this team that management apparantly loves.

[ConstableRabbit]

I haven't read through 21 pages of posts, but I just thought it was funny that Corey's quote in the espn.com article included "I'm a guy that can get on base..."

 

Has he looked at his stats? :lol:

 

 

Good luck to him as long as he doesn't come back to haunt us, which I don't really see happening. I will always miss his McDonalds homerun ad.

[stitchface]

I don't understand why everyone makes this so complicated. Corey couldn't put the bat on the ball and couldn't recognize a hittable pitch. It doesn't matter where he hit in the order.

 

I don't understand why you think it's that simple. Corey did put the bat on the ball and did produce acceptable numbers before, and he could do it again, if he was used properly. The only reason spot in the order matters is because not only did they bat him in the spot, but they expected him to do things he could not do, and de-emphasized the things he could do. You can't judge Corey on 2005 alone, when he was truly awful. He was not always awful, or close to it. He has been as productive or more productive than other guys on this team that management apparantly loves.

 

 

Because it is that simple. For decades players who don't take walks and strike out a lot have failed to be successful in major league baseball. Corey would benefit greatly from putting the ball in play more frequently but he strikes out a ton. Therefore his batting average is always going to be low. Since he doesn't take walks, his obp will always be low. He can't recognize a pitch he can drive so his slugging will always be low. Corey does not have the tools to be a star major league player. sure, he'll be better than 2005, but he will never be a star. To blame Dusty or Baylor or the cubs is a cop-out. The organization is to blame for not recognizing his weaknesses and trying to correct them before he reached the majors, but to use his batting order spot as an excuse is a desperate plea by someone who cannot believe he failed. All the signs have pointed to his eventual failure for several years. Could I be wrong? Sure. But decades of baseball players indicate chances are Corey will never amount to much and it has nothing to do with Dusty Baker.

[stitchface]

He has been as productive or more productive than other guys on this team that management apparantly loves.

 

what's the relevance of that? Its quite clear management has no clue what a valuable baseball player is.

[goonys evil twin]

Because it is that simple. For decades players who don't take walks and strike out a lot have failed to be successful in major league baseball. Corey would benefit greatly from putting the ball in play more frequently but he strikes out a ton. Therefore his batting average is always going to be low. Since he doesn't take walks, his obp will always be low. He can't recognize a pitch he can drive so his slugging will always be low. Corey does not have the tools to be a star major league player. sure, he'll be better than 2005, but he will never be a star. To blame Dusty or Baylor or the cubs is a cop-out. The organization is to blame for not recognizing his weaknesses and trying to correct them before he reached the majors, but to use his batting order spot as an excuse is a desperate plea by someone who cannot believe he failed. All the signs have pointed to his eventual failure for several years. Could I be wrong? Sure. But decades of baseball players indicate chances are Corey will never amount to much and it has nothing to do with Dusty Baker.

 

I disagree with people saying it's all Dusty and the Cubs' fault. But I think you're just as wrong for saying Dusty shares no blame. The leadoff thing played a huge role. It was an example of the Cubs obviously not noticing his weaknesses, and putting him in a spot that would shine a light on his faults and ignore his favorables. Obviously you are wrong when you say his average will always be low and his SLG will always be low. His OBP will always be low, but in 2003 his .298 AVG and .511 SLG showed they didn't always have to be low. Corey could be a guy who hits .280/.320/.500 without changing a whole lot. He could still rack up the Ks. You're allowing his 2005 to completely erase his others years, when in fact, a happy medium between 2003 and 2004 is both very possible and acceptable. But the Cubs wanted him to hit .300 at the expense of power, which makes no sense because a lot of his ability to hit for some average despite the K's is his ability to hit homeruns.

 

They completely went back on their original plan not to ask him to be a slap hitter. They screwed him up. Maybe he would have screwed himself up eventually. And I definitely never liked his approach in the first place. But when the team already stresses such an approach, it's tough to fault a guy for failing to fix his problems.

[goonys evil twin]

He has been as productive or more productive than other guys on this team that management apparantly loves.

 

what's the relevance of that? Its quite clear management has no clue what a valuable baseball player is.

 

It's quite relevent. They didn't have to trade him. He didn't have to be moved at all costs. They could have gotten more out of him on the field than through trade if they used him properly. And they wouldn't have had a hard time justifying it given the type of player they already have. If you can justify Jones and his contract, how can you not justify one more year of giving Corey a chance, even as a 4th OF?

[NorthsideAvenger]

I don't understand why everyone makes this so complicated. Corey couldn't put the bat on the ball and couldn't recognize a hittable pitch. It doesn't matter where he hit in the order.

 

I don't understand why you think it's that simple. Corey did put the bat on the ball and did produce acceptable numbers before, and he could do it again, if he was used properly. The only reason spot in the order matters is because not only did they bat him in the spot, but they expected him to do things he could not do, and de-emphasized the things he could do. You can't judge Corey on 2005 alone, when he was truly awful. He was not always awful, or close to it. He has been as productive or more productive than other guys on this team that management apparantly loves.

 

In 8 seasons with the Chicago Cubs organization, Corey Patterson had two and half seasons in which he did nothing (his first in A ball, and 2004, and 2003 being the half yr. Heck even his LONE good YEAR in 2004, he was still league average as a player. I do blame the Cubs for rushing him. Watching the Cubs rush Patterson and now Pie is like jumping out of a airplane without a parachute. You know what's going to happen, and you have no ability to change it. Cubs should deserves some of the blame, but to keep it simple EVERYBODY was at fault for the development of Corey Patterson, and I said EVERYBODY.

 

I do think Corey may become a useful player in Baltimore, but he won't become the next Lou Brock, or Rafael Palmeiro, or heck even Eric Hinske.

[stitchface]

He has been as productive or more productive than other guys on this team that management apparantly loves.

 

what's the relevance of that? Its quite clear management has no clue what a valuable baseball player is.

 

It's quite relevent. They didn't have to trade him. He didn't have to be moved at all costs. They could have gotten more out of him on the field than through trade if they used him properly. And they wouldn't have had a hard time justifying it given the type of player they already have. If you can justify Jones and his contract, how can you not justify one more year of giving Corey a chance, even as a 4th OF?

 

I'm not justifying anything. I don't see how its related to how corey got screwed up.

[stitchface]

Because it is that simple. For decades players who don't take walks and strike out a lot have failed to be successful in major league baseball. Corey would benefit greatly from putting the ball in play more frequently but he strikes out a ton. Therefore his batting average is always going to be low. Since he doesn't take walks, his obp will always be low. He can't recognize a pitch he can drive so his slugging will always be low. Corey does not have the tools to be a star major league player. sure, he'll be better than 2005, but he will never be a star. To blame Dusty or Baylor or the cubs is a cop-out. The organization is to blame for not recognizing his weaknesses and trying to correct them before he reached the majors, but to use his batting order spot as an excuse is a desperate plea by someone who cannot believe he failed. All the signs have pointed to his eventual failure for several years. Could I be wrong? Sure. But decades of baseball players indicate chances are Corey will never amount to much and it has nothing to do with Dusty Baker.

 

I disagree with people saying it's all Dusty and the Cubs' fault. But I think you're just as wrong for saying Dusty shares no blame. The leadoff thing played a huge role. It was an example of the Cubs obviously not noticing his weaknesses, and putting him in a spot that would shine a light on his faults and ignore his favorables. Obviously you are wrong when you say his average will always be low and his SLG will always be low. His OBP will always be low, but in 2003 his .298 AVG and .511 SLG showed they didn't always have to be low. Corey could be a guy who hits .280/.320/.500 without changing a whole lot. He could still rack up the Ks. You're allowing his 2005 to completely erase his others years, when in fact, a happy medium between 2003 and 2004 is both very possible and acceptable. But the Cubs wanted him to hit .300 at the expense of power, which makes no sense because a lot of his ability to hit for some average despite the K's is his ability to hit homeruns.

 

They completely went back on their original plan not to ask him to be a slap hitter. They screwed him up. Maybe he would have screwed himself up eventually. And I definitely never liked his approach in the first place. But when the team already stresses such an approach, it's tough to fault a guy for failing to fix his problems.

 

 

Who was manager in 2003 and 2004? 2005 is a larger sample size than 2003, yes? I think you are falling into the trap of assuming since his first half of 2003 was at one level, he could always perform at that level. I don't think that is the case and that there would have been regression to the mean.

 

Bonds and Sosa both hit leadoff - how come they didn't get screwed up? Corey never tried to become a slap hitter but my guess is he was more likely to be successful that way than as a power hitter. There are just not very many successful power hitters with the kind of plate discipline Corey has. And very few hitters have ever learned plate discipline in the major leagues (or in the minor leagues for that matter). I wouldn't say Dusty had no role in Corey's demise, but its minute compared to Corey himself.

[stitchface]

I don't understand why everyone makes this so complicated. Corey couldn't put the bat on the ball and couldn't recognize a hittable pitch. It doesn't matter where he hit in the order.

 

I don't understand why you think it's that simple. Corey did put the bat on the ball and did produce acceptable numbers before, and he could do it again, if he was used properly. The only reason spot in the order matters is because not only did they bat him in the spot, but they expected him to do things he could not do, and de-emphasized the things he could do. You can't judge Corey on 2005 alone, when he was truly awful. He was not always awful, or close to it. He has been as productive or more productive than other guys on this team that management apparantly loves.

 

In 8 seasons with the Chicago Cubs organization, Corey Patterson had two and half seasons in which he did nothing (his first in A ball, and 2004, and 2003 being the half yr. Heck even his LONE good YEAR in 2004, he was still league average as a player. I do blame the Cubs for rushing him. Watching the Cubs rush Patterson and now Pie is like jumping out of a airplane without a parachute. You know what's going to happen, and you have no ability to change it. Cubs should deserves some of the blame, but to keep it simple EVERYBODY was at fault for the development of Corey Patterson, and I said EVERYBODY.

 

I do think Corey may become a useful player in Baltimore, but he won't become the next Lou Brock, or Rafael Palmeiro, or heck even Eric Hinske.

 

unlike corey, Pie has shown progression at each new level. He should start the year at AA in my opinion, but moving to the hitting friendly PCL should not doom Pie. IMO, he has a lot to learn in the minors still but so far I don't think the Cubs have screwed up too badly.

[StMarksCubs]

I don't understand why everyone makes this so complicated. Corey couldn't put the bat on the ball and couldn't recognize a hittable pitch. It doesn't matter where he hit in the order.

 

I don't understand why you think it's that simple. Corey did put the bat on the ball and did produce acceptable numbers before, and he could do it again, if he was used properly. The only reason spot in the order matters is because not only did they bat him in the spot, but they expected him to do things he could not do, and de-emphasized the things he could do. You can't judge Corey on 2005 alone, when he was truly awful. He was not always awful, or close to it. He has been as productive or more productive than other guys on this team that management apparantly loves.

 

In 8 seasons with the Chicago Cubs organization, Corey Patterson had two and half seasons in which he did nothing (his first in A ball, and 2004, and 2003 being the half yr. Heck even his LONE good YEAR in 2004, he was still league average as a player. I do blame the Cubs for rushing him. Watching the Cubs rush Patterson and now Pie is like jumping out of a airplane without a parachute. You know what's going to happen, and you have no ability to change it. Cubs should deserves some of the blame, but to keep it simple EVERYBODY was at fault for the development of Corey Patterson, and I said EVERYBODY.

 

I do think Corey may become a useful player in Baltimore, but he won't become the next Lou Brock, or Rafael Palmeiro, or heck even Eric Hinske.

 

unlike corey, Pie has shown progression at each new level. He should start the year at AA in my opinion, but moving to the hitting friendly PCL should not doom Pie. IMO, he has a lot to learn in the minors still but so far I don't think the Cubs have screwed up too badly.

 

So if Pie were, say, a Braves prospect, would they be considering him for a mid-season replacement in 2006 like we are?

[goonys evil twin]

Who was manager in 2003 and 2004? 2005 is a larger sample size than 2003, yes? I think you are falling into the trap of assuming since his first half of 2003 was at one level, he could always perform at that level.

 

No I'm not actually, if you took the time to read what I wrote I said he could find a happy medium between 2003 and 2004.

 

Dusty was the manager then, and he wasn't trying to turn him into slappy McGee then. Corey in 2003 hit 3rd or 6th the vast majority of the time. Dusty tried inserting him into leadoff in 2004 with mixed results, he couldn't hit for average or get on base, but he still hit for some power there. He had greater success in the 7 hole. The Cubs want their leadoff man to hit .300 with 190 singles and 10 triples, plus 30-40 SB, with limited Ks. They don't care if he walks 15 times, 55 times or 105 times. Corey was never going to be a .300 hitting singles hitter. But when they tried to turn him into a leadoff hitter, that's exactly what they tried to make him, giving him extra batting instruction midseason to completely change what he was (impossible) and forcing offseason work on him to do something he was never going to be capable of doing.

Edited January 10, 2006 by goony's evil twin

[stitchface]

Who was manager in 2003 and 2004? 2005 is a larger sample size than 2003, yes? I think you are falling into the trap of assuming since his first half of 2003 was at one level, he could always perform at that level.

 

No I'm not actually, if you took the time to read what I wrote I said he could find a happy medium between 2003 and 2004.

 

you're right, you did say that. I did take the time to read it so no need to be snide. the happy medium to me is more likely between 2003 and 2005. I don't think you can dismiss 2005 altogether.

[UK1679666180]

So if Pie were, say, a Braves prospect, would they be considering him for a mid-season replacement in 2006 like we are?

 

That's a good question, I'd feel more confident in ATL making that decision. Pie would've had better instructors during his ascent to the majors as well as having more confidence in their decision makers as far as him being ready compared to the Cubs making that same decision. Once he got to the majors, you have Bobby Cox compared to Baker, Cox dwarfs Baker as a manager and ATL has better instructors at the Major League level as well.

 

Comparing the track record of the Cubs and Braves as far as position players, is a model of success vs. a model of futility as far as drafting and developing quality position players.

[goonys evil twin]

Who was manager in 2003 and 2004? 2005 is a larger sample size than 2003, yes? I think you are falling into the trap of assuming since his first half of 2003 was at one level, he could always perform at that level.

 

No I'm not actually, if you took the time to read what I wrote I said he could find a happy medium between 2003 and 2004.

 

you're right, you did say that. I did take the time to read it so no need to be snide. the happy medium to me is more likely between 2003 and 2005. I don't think you can dismiss 2005 altogether.

 

I don't dismiss it. I think it was horrible, and inevitable if you tried to turn Corey into what the Cubs tried to turn him into. I think he should have gone from low A, to high A, and then AA, and should have hit in the 6 or 7 hole his first few years in the big leagues. I think it's incredibly stupid to focus your entire draft theory on tools, but once you get such a toolsy player like Corey, you have to make the best of the situation, and try to screw it up as little as possible. The Cubs screwed it up as much as any team could screw up. But I think if you focused your efforts on the right offseason acquisitions, and built a solid lineup in front of him, then you could have thrown Corey into the 7 hole this year and had a reasonable chance at .275/.320/.475 (perfectly acceptable for a $3m CF who still has some upside. I think you had a chance of salvaging a .280/330/500 career out of the guy if you didn't give him the Farnsy/Sosa/Walker treatment and try and place blame on him for the team's ills. I think 2005 was entirely avoidable if the Cubs treated the Corey situation differently. I'm not saying they could have done it differently and turned him into a superstar. I don't think Corey could ever become a superstar. But I think you could have maximized his abilities by using him properly, and the Cubs failed to maximize his ability because they took a talented but flawed and limited player, ignored the core flaw, and took him out of his game by placing unrealistic expectations on his development.

[Tim]

So if Pie were, say, a Braves prospect, would they be considering him for a mid-season replacement in 2006 like we are?

 

That's a good question, I'd feel more confident in ATL making that decision. Pie would've had better instructors during his ascent to the majors as well as having more confidence in their decision makers as far as him being ready compared to the Cubs making that same decision. Once he got to the majors, you have Bobby Cox compared to Baker, Cox dwarfs Baker as a manager and ATL has better instructors at the Major League level as well.

 

Comparing the track record of the Cubs and Braves as far as position players, is a model of success vs. a model of futility as far as drafting and developing quality position players.

Is it that you don't think much of Zisk + Joshua or do you just think that much of the Braves instructors?

[stitchface]

Who was manager in 2003 and 2004? 2005 is a larger sample size than 2003, yes? I think you are falling into the trap of assuming since his first half of 2003 was at one level, he could always perform at that level.

 

No I'm not actually, if you took the time to read what I wrote I said he could find a happy medium between 2003 and 2004.

 

you're right, you did say that. I did take the time to read it so no need to be snide. the happy medium to me is more likely between 2003 and 2005. I don't think you can dismiss 2005 altogether.

 

I don't dismiss it. I think it was horrible, and inevitable if you tried to turn Corey into what the Cubs tried to turn him into. I think he should have gone from low A, to high A, and then AA, and should have hit in the 6 or 7 hole his first few years in the big leagues. I think it's incredibly stupid to focus your entire draft theory on tools, but once you get such a toolsy player like Corey, you have to make the best of the situation, and try to screw it up as little as possible. The Cubs screwed it up as much as any team could screw up. But I think if you focused your efforts on the right offseason acquisitions, and built a solid lineup in front of him, then you could have thrown Corey into the 7 hole this year and had a reasonable chance at .275/.320/.475 (perfectly acceptable for a $3m CF who still has some upside. I think you had a chance of salvaging a .280/330/500 career out of the guy if you didn't give him the Farnsy/Sosa/Walker treatment and try and place blame on him for the team's ills. I think 2005 was entirely avoidable if the Cubs treated the Corey situation differently. I'm not saying they could have done it differently and turned him into a superstar. I don't think Corey could ever become a superstar. But I think you could have maximized his abilities by using him properly, and the Cubs failed to maximize his ability because they took a talented but flawed and limited player, ignored the core flaw, and took him out of his game by placing unrealistic expectations on his development.

 

I agree with all of that - particularly the last sentence. I just think Baker likely played less than 10 percent of a role in his demise. If it were up to me, I wouldn't have drafted him - at least not as high as he went. I've been advocating batting him low in the order for years but I don't really think that is the major cause of his failures. He has a glaring flaw and it is one that generally speels doom for baseball players. Corey has enough talent to still have a career perhaps, but he was always going to be limited. I agree that by rushing him the cubs exposed his flaw.

[stitchface]

So if Pie were, say, a Braves prospect, would they be considering him for a mid-season replacement in 2006 like we are?

 

That's a good question, I'd feel more confident in ATL making that decision. Pie would've had better instructors during his ascent to the majors as well as having more confidence in their decision makers as far as him being ready compared to the Cubs making that same decision. Once he got to the majors, you have Bobby Cox compared to Baker, Cox dwarfs Baker as a manager and ATL has better instructors at the Major League level as well.

 

Comparing the track record of the Cubs and Braves as far as position players, is a model of success vs. a model of futility as far as drafting and developing quality position players.

Is it that you don't think much of Zisk + Joshua or do you just think that much of the Braves instructors?

 

I always though UK loved Zisk. The cubs players seem to start to fade high in the minors - this is very troubling.

[UK1679666180]

I have a great deal of respect for Joshua and Zisk (both would do a better job than Matthews or Clines, IMO) as you know, but a player like Pie is going to need just as much coaching as the ML level, if not more.

 

I have little confidence that Pie would progress as a player during his rookie season as he would if he played his rookie year with ATL.

 

Once the League adjusts to a player, that's when the coaching at the ML level kicks in.

 

If Pie struggles at the start, would you be more confident with Baker handling it or Cox?

 

That's an obvious choice for me.

 

Overall, I think Braves have better instructors though in the minors and that includes Joshua and Zisk, which isn't being critical of those two, just praise for the way the Braves operate.