Fox Sports grades Cub off-season a D / SI gives them B

[frostwyrm]

Most of Hendry's reputation rests on his getting Lee/Ramirez/Barrett. Those were really good moves, but enough time has passed that now you have to say "Jim, what have you done for us LATELY?"

[KingCubsFan]

He built it into a top 5 system as of 2002-3. That's more than somewhat. It's no longer a top 5 system, and it's not just because Z and Prior aren't in it anymore. It's because we've passed over deserving young players and trashed their value until we've had to give them away, and because we've neglected to propely scout latin america and asia, and finally, and most importantly, you choose to build your system around ceiling and toolsy players.

 

and the Cubs have some excellent minor league coaches. They can't prevent, for example, Cruz having his value wrecked by being misused by Baylor and Baker, and then traded for peanuts relative to his previous value.

Atlanta and Los Angeles both build their system around "ceiling and toolsy players" and they have two of the best farm systems in baseball. The decline in the farm system has more to do with, like you said, our recent failures in latin america and asia, John Stocksill's mediocre drafts, and injuries.

[dalgreen]

Back to the discussion on "competing" vs. "contending", there is a huge difference. A team can be competitive just being. 500, but you won't contend being a .500 team (okay, maybe in the NL West). One of my big complaints is the culture. I will never, ever forget back in 1995 after the Cardinals were sold, I heard Mark Lamping (Cards President) at his press conference state, " Any year we don't contend for the division title will be considered a failed season." At that time, the Cardinals had come off of four or five bad seasons. Then, this year, I heard one of the ownership members saying, "Our goal is to not get to the World Series but win it." My question is did Hendry, Baker or MacPhail make any of those kind of statements at the convention last weekend. In fact, I rarely, if ever hear the word contend out of any of their mouths. I hear "compete" all the time, but Milwaukee competed last year and finished third with no real shot at the division or wild-card. There's a big difference between the two.

[kroth1342]

Atlanta and Los Angeles both build their system around "ceiling and toolsy players" and they have two of the best farm systems in baseball. The decline in the farm system has more to do with, like you said, our recent failures in latin america and asia, John Stocksill's mediocre drafts, and injuries.

 

When was the last time LA produced a good player?

Edited January 18, 2006 by kroth1342

[USSoccer]

He built it into a top 5 system as of 2002-3. That's more than somewhat. It's no longer a top 5 system, and it's not just because Z and Prior aren't in it anymore. It's because we've passed over deserving young players and trashed their value until we've had to give them away, and because we've neglected to propely scout latin america and asia, and finally, and most importantly, you choose to build your system around ceiling and toolsy players.

 

and the Cubs have some excellent minor league coaches. They can't prevent, for example, Cruz having his value wrecked by being misused by Baylor and Baker, and then traded for peanuts relative to his previous value.

Atlanta and Los Angeles both build their system around "ceiling and toolsy players" and they have two of the best farm systems in baseball. The decline in the farm system has more to do with, like you said, our recent failures in latin america and asia, John Stocksill's mediocre drafts, and injuries.

 

In Atlanta's case, they also allow their young players to play for extended stretches everyday. They are developed with the intention of them producing on the ML level. They are drafted and generally kept in the role that they're intended to fill, from A ball to the majors. There's a track record of young players being treated no differently than vets by Bobby Cox, and being relied on to produce. For instance, Francour hit in the middle of the order in the lineup in the minors, so Cox kept him in that role in the majors. The Cubs would have had him hitting 7th or 8th, and platooning indefinetly. The Braves set their players up for success, and try and maximize the tools a player has. The Cubs, needless to say, do not do this except in very rare instances, and even then they find ways to contribute to a player failing (Corey Patterson).

 

In LA's, count the number of everyday position players they have that have come from their system. It's not a very big number. They had Izturis, and before that, who? LoDuca? Piazza? It's not as if LA's a factory of productive young players the way Atlanta does.

[dalgreen]

and the Cubs have some excellent minor league coaches.

 

Do we really have excellent instructors? I'm probably one of the minor league instructors biggest critics. It's getting real old hearing how good so and so is yet seeing guys not reaching their potential. Guys like Choi, Hill, Kelton, Dubois Jackson, etc. I'm still seeing nothing really extraordinary from Harvey. So, our instructors are considered excellent based on.....?

[USSoccer]

and the Cubs have some excellent minor league coaches.

 

Do we really have excellent instructors? I'm probably one of the minor league instructors biggest critics. It's getting real old hearing how good so and so is yet seeing guys not reaching their potential. Guys like Choi, Hill, Kelton, Dubois Jackson, etc. I'm still seeing nothing really extraordinary from Harvey. So, our instructors are considered excellent based on.....?

 

I was under the impression that the DJAXX had really good coaches.

[Proven Veteran]

He built it into a top 5 system as of 2002-3. That's more than somewhat. It's no longer a top 5 system, and it's not just because Z and Prior aren't in it anymore. It's because we've passed over deserving young players and trashed their value until we've had to give them away, and because we've neglected to propely scout latin america and asia, and finally, and most importantly, you choose to build your system around ceiling and toolsy players.

 

and the Cubs have some excellent minor league coaches. They can't prevent, for example, Cruz having his value wrecked by being misused by Baylor and Baker, and then traded for peanuts relative to his previous value.

Atlanta and Los Angeles both build their system around "ceiling and toolsy players" and they have two of the best farm systems in baseball. The decline in the farm system has more to do with, like you said, our recent failures in latin america and asia, John Stocksill's mediocre drafts, and injuries.

 

In LA's, count the number of everyday position players they have that have come from their system. It's not a very big number. They had Izturis, and before that, who? LoDuca? Piazza? It's not as if LA's a factory of productive young players the way Atlanta does.

 

I think (hope) he was talking about the Angels.

[kroth1342]

He built it into a top 5 system as of 2002-3. That's more than somewhat. It's no longer a top 5 system, and it's not just because Z and Prior aren't in it anymore. It's because we've passed over deserving young players and trashed their value until we've had to give them away, and because we've neglected to propely scout latin america and asia, and finally, and most importantly, you choose to build your system around ceiling and toolsy players.

 

and the Cubs have some excellent minor league coaches. They can't prevent, for example, Cruz having his value wrecked by being misused by Baylor and Baker, and then traded for peanuts relative to his previous value.

Atlanta and Los Angeles both build their system around "ceiling and toolsy players" and they have two of the best farm systems in baseball. The decline in the farm system has more to do with, like you said, our recent failures in latin america and asia, John Stocksill's mediocre drafts, and injuries.

 

In LA's, count the number of everyday position players they have that have come from their system. It's not a very big number. They had Izturis, and before that, who? LoDuca? Piazza? It's not as if LA's a factory of productive young players the way Atlanta does.

 

I think (hope) he was talking about the Angels.

 

I know he was talking about the Dodgers.

[CubinNY]

and the Cubs have some excellent minor league coaches.

 

Do we really have excellent instructors? I'm probably one of the minor league instructors biggest critics. It's getting real old hearing how good so and so is yet seeing guys not reaching their potential. Guys like Choi, Hill, Kelton, Dubois Jackson, etc. I'm still seeing nothing really extraordinary from Harvey. So, our instructors are considered excellent based on.....?

 

I was under the impression that the DJAXX had really good coaches.

 

I think they do. Why doesn't the talent in the minors translate in the bigs?

 

I think there are several reasons. Most are not under the organization's control, but some are. For example, I don't think it does much good to platoon a player until he demonstrates he cannot produce. Yet the Cubs want to platoon young guys. I don't think it does much good for a guy who is use to playing every day and sit them on the bench only to give them infrequent starts and pinch hits (Choi, Dubios, Hill) . It doesn't help a guy to yo-yo him from the big club to the minors, especially a pitcher who might go from starter in AAA to reliver in the bigs (Cruz, Z, Hill, Farns, etc). It doesn't help a young player by batting him in the 1 spot for a month then 2 then 6 then 7th then back to 1 (Patterson),

[Ram1380]

The Dodgers have a lot of talent on the cusp of the big leagues right now, their tale has yet to be told. They are where the Brewers were a year or so ago.

 

Beltre can still be good.

[goonys evil twin]

and the Cubs have some excellent minor league coaches.

 

Do we really have excellent instructors? I'm probably one of the minor league instructors biggest critics. It's getting real old hearing how good so and so is yet seeing guys not reaching their potential. Guys like Choi, Hill, Kelton, Dubois Jackson, etc. I'm still seeing nothing really extraordinary from Harvey. So, our instructors are considered excellent based on.....?

 

I think a lot of people in baseball are very generous in their definitions of really good. Obviously just to make the majors you have to have had a lot of success in your past. But, when you say a guy isn't good, or sucks, you aren't comparing him to the rest of the baseball playing population, but the major league baseball population. Likewise, all these "good baseball men" who have nothing but glowing reports from their peers, aren't actually good in the sense that they are better than others at their level.

 

I think the Cubs might employ a lot of people who know a lot about baseball, but after looking at their history of success finding and developing prospects (or lack of success), I can't see how their instructors could be considered good. Seriously, Jody Davis was just given a manager's position with just about zero coaching in his history. I think the talent pool for minor league instructors is pretty slim. If you want the job, and have a history in the game, you can get a job, for the most part.

[kroth1342]

It doesn't help a guy to yo-yo him from the big club to the minors, especially a pitcher who might go from starter in AAA to reliver in the bigs (Cruz, Z, Hill, Farns, etc).

 

I disagree. I think that a number of long relief appearences by a young pitcher can serve as a good opportunity for evaluating whether or not that pitcher can be an asset in the rotation.

[dalgreen]

and the Cubs have some excellent minor league coaches.

 

Do we really have excellent instructors? I'm probably one of the minor league instructors biggest critics. It's getting real old hearing how good so and so is yet seeing guys not reaching their potential. Guys like Choi, Hill, Kelton, Dubois Jackson, etc. I'm still seeing nothing really extraordinary from Harvey. So, our instructors are considered excellent based on.....?

 

I was under the impression that the DJAXX had really good coaches.

 

And they might. However, I don't get all giddy about our minor league teams winning their division. I want the Cubs winning theirs, and with some of their farm players. I just find it hard to believe that with so-called great coaching and talent, there is not one position player brought through the Cubs system who is making an impact in the majors ---and I don't consider Hinske an example of an impact player. But maybe I'm too hard on the Cub instructors, but that's my feeling on them.

[CubinNY]

It doesn't help a guy to yo-yo him from the big club to the minors, especially a pitcher who might go from starter in AAA to reliver in the bigs (Cruz, Z, Hill, Farns, etc).

 

I disagree. I think that a number of long relief appearences by a young pitcher can serve as a good opportunity for evaluating whether or not that pitcher can be an asset in the rotation.

 

Why not put the guy in the rotation to evaluate him?

 

I guess that would be too simple.

[KingCubsFan]

He built it into a top 5 system as of 2002-3. That's more than somewhat. It's no longer a top 5 system, and it's not just because Z and Prior aren't in it anymore. It's because we've passed over deserving young players and trashed their value until we've had to give them away, and because we've neglected to propely scout latin america and asia, and finally, and most importantly, you choose to build your system around ceiling and toolsy players.

 

and the Cubs have some excellent minor league coaches. They can't prevent, for example, Cruz having his value wrecked by being misused by Baylor and Baker, and then traded for peanuts relative to his previous value.

Atlanta and Los Angeles both build their system around "ceiling and toolsy players" and they have two of the best farm systems in baseball. The decline in the farm system has more to do with, like you said, our recent failures in latin america and asia, John Stocksill's mediocre drafts, and injuries.

 

In Atlanta's case, they also allow their young players to play for extended stretches everyday. They are developed with the intention of them producing on the ML level. They are drafted and generally kept in the role that they're intended to fill, from A ball to the majors. There's a track record of young players being treated no differently than vets by Bobby Cox, and being relied on to produce. For instance, Francour hit in the middle of the order in the lineup in the minors, so Cox kept him in that role in the majors. The Cubs would have had him hitting 7th or 8th, and platooning indefinetly. The Braves set their players up for success, and try and maximize the tools a player has. The Cubs, needless to say, do not do this except in very rare instances, and even then they find ways to contribute to a player failing (Corey Patterson).

 

In LA's, count the number of everyday position players they have that have come from their system. It's not a very big number. They had Izturis, and before that, who? LoDuca? Piazza? It's not as if LA's a factory of productive young players the way Atlanta does.

In the minors, the Cubs generally keep players in the role they are intended to fill as well. Every team does. And Francoeur only hit in the middle of the order after he established himself as the team's best hitter. He didn't come up and immediately step in batting third. Regardless, Bobby Cox's usage of young players doesn't change the fact that, as an organization, the Braves draft raw, high-ceiling players consistently and always have one of the top farm systems. So the Cubs problems extend beyond their draft philosophy.

As for the Dodgers, Logan White hasn't really been around long enough to have a lot of his players graduate to the majors. But within the next two years, Russell Martin, Andy LaRoche, Joel Guzman, Delwyn Young, James Loney and others will all be in the majors. And they currently have the best farm system in terms of ranking.

[dalgreen]

and the Cubs have some excellent minor league coaches.

 

Do we really have excellent instructors? I'm probably one of the minor league instructors biggest critics. It's getting real old hearing how good so and so is yet seeing guys not reaching their potential. Guys like Choi, Hill, Kelton, Dubois Jackson, etc. I'm still seeing nothing really extraordinary from Harvey. So, our instructors are considered excellent based on.....?

 

I was under the impression that the DJAXX had really good coaches.

 

I think they do. Why doesn't the talent in the minors translate in the bigs?

 

I think there are several reasons. Most are not under the organization's control, but some are. For example, I don't think it does much good to platoon a player until he demonstrates he cannot produce. Yet the Cubs want to platoon young guys. I don't think it does much good for a guy who is use to playing every day and sit them on the bench only to give them infrequent starts and pinch hits (Choi, Dubios, Hill) . It doesn't help a guy to yo-yo him from the big club to the minors, especially a pitcher who might go from starter in AAA to reliver in the bigs (Cruz, Z, Hill, Farns, etc). It doesn't help a young player by batting him in the 1 spot for a month then 2 then 6 then 7th then back to 1 (Patterson),

 

One of the reasons why I'm so high on Matt Murton is because he didn't come through our system. I have a feeling he's going to refute your theory about how platooning a young player can mess with his development. I think he's going to be a very fine player even after platooning last year.

[dalgreen]

It doesn't help a guy to yo-yo him from the big club to the minors, especially a pitcher who might go from starter in AAA to reliver in the bigs (Cruz, Z, Hill, Farns, etc).

 

I disagree. I think that a number of long relief appearences by a young pitcher can serve as a good opportunity for evaluating whether or not that pitcher can be an asset in the rotation.

 

Why not put the guy in the rotation to evaluate him?

 

I guess that would be too simple.

 

If that's the chief evaluation tool one would use, then a guy like Rich Hill would be given up on. I'm not even close to giving up on him.

[kroth1342]

It doesn't help a guy to yo-yo him from the big club to the minors, especially a pitcher who might go from starter in AAA to reliver in the bigs (Cruz, Z, Hill, Farns, etc).

 

I disagree. I think that a number of long relief appearences by a young pitcher can serve as a good opportunity for evaluating whether or not that pitcher can be an asset in the rotation.

 

Why not put the guy in the rotation to evaluate him?

 

I guess that would be too simple.

 

Maybe the organization isn't sure if the pitcher has enough quality pitches to be have success or wants to try him out in lower leverage situations. Especially if the team is having success with its current rotation.

Edited January 18, 2006 by kroth1342

[USSoccer]

He built it into a top 5 system as of 2002-3. That's more than somewhat. It's no longer a top 5 system, and it's not just because Z and Prior aren't in it anymore. It's because we've passed over deserving young players and trashed their value until we've had to give them away, and because we've neglected to propely scout latin america and asia, and finally, and most importantly, you choose to build your system around ceiling and toolsy players.

 

and the Cubs have some excellent minor league coaches. They can't prevent, for example, Cruz having his value wrecked by being misused by Baylor and Baker, and then traded for peanuts relative to his previous value.

Atlanta and Los Angeles both build their system around "ceiling and toolsy players" and they have two of the best farm systems in baseball. The decline in the farm system has more to do with, like you said, our recent failures in latin america and asia, John Stocksill's mediocre drafts, and injuries.

 

In Atlanta's case, they also allow their young players to play for extended stretches everyday. They are developed with the intention of them producing on the ML level. They are drafted and generally kept in the role that they're intended to fill, from A ball to the majors. There's a track record of young players being treated no differently than vets by Bobby Cox, and being relied on to produce. For instance, Francour hit in the middle of the order in the lineup in the minors, so Cox kept him in that role in the majors. The Cubs would have had him hitting 7th or 8th, and platooning indefinetly. The Braves set their players up for success, and try and maximize the tools a player has. The Cubs, needless to say, do not do this except in very rare instances, and even then they find ways to contribute to a player failing (Corey Patterson).

 

In LA's, count the number of everyday position players they have that have come from their system. It's not a very big number. They had Izturis, and before that, who? LoDuca? Piazza? It's not as if LA's a factory of productive young players the way Atlanta does.

In the minors, the Cubs generally keep players in the role they are intended to fill as well. Every team does. And Francoeur only hit in the middle of the order after he established himself as the team's best hitter. He didn't come up and immediately step in batting third. Regardless, Bobby Cox's usage of young players doesn't change the fact that, as an organization, the Braves draft raw, high-ceiling players consistently and always have one of the top farm systems. So the Cubs problems extend beyond their draft philosophy.

As for the Dodgers, Logan White hasn't really been around long enough to have a lot of his players graduate to the majors. But within the next two years, Russell Martin, Andy LaRoche, Joel Guzman, Delwyn Young, James Loney and others will all be in the majors. And they currently have the best farm system in terms of ranking.

 

Actually, Cox did bat Francour 3rd-5th upon his debut. He never once bat him 7th or 8th.

 

Your point about the Cubs having issues beyond their draft philosiphy is an obvious one. I don't think anyone would say otherwise.

 

As far as the Dodgers go, we're talking about successful major leaguers developed from the system. None of the guys you listed qualify. They all could crash and burn.

[CubinNY]

It doesn't help a guy to yo-yo him from the big club to the minors, especially a pitcher who might go from starter in AAA to reliver in the bigs (Cruz, Z, Hill, Farns, etc).

 

I disagree. I think that a number of long relief appearences by a young pitcher can serve as a good opportunity for evaluating whether or not that pitcher can be an asset in the rotation.

 

Why not put the guy in the rotation to evaluate him?

 

I guess that would be too simple.

 

If that's the chief evaluation tool one would use, then a guy like Rich Hill would be given up on. I'm not even close to giving up on him.

Hill has hardley been given enough opportunities to write off.

But Hill is also a good example of how usage patterns can hurt a young player.

[Andy]

and the Cubs have some excellent minor league coaches.

 

Do we really have excellent instructors? I'm probably one of the minor league instructors biggest critics. It's getting real old hearing how good so and so is yet seeing guys not reaching their potential. Guys like Choi, Hill, Kelton, Dubois Jackson, etc. I'm still seeing nothing really extraordinary from Harvey. So, our instructors are considered excellent based on.....?

 

I was under the impression that the DJAXX had really good coaches.

 

I think they do. Why doesn't the talent in the minors translate in the bigs?

 

I think there are several reasons. Most are not under the organization's control, but some are. For example, I don't think it does much good to platoon a player until he demonstrates he cannot produce. Yet the Cubs want to platoon young guys. I don't think it does much good for a guy who is use to playing every day and sit them on the bench only to give them infrequent starts and pinch hits (Choi, Dubios, Hill) . It doesn't help a guy to yo-yo him from the big club to the minors, especially a pitcher who might go from starter in AAA to reliver in the bigs (Cruz, Z, Hill, Farns, etc). It doesn't help a young player by batting him in the 1 spot for a month then 2 then 6 then 7th then back to 1 (Patterson),

 

One of the reasons why I'm so high on Matt Murton is because he didn't come through our system. I have a feeling he's going to refute your theory about how platooning a young player can mess with his development. I think he's going to be a very fine player even after platooning last year.

Just because a player (like Murton) is good enough to succeed even after platooning doesn't mean that platooning rookies isn't a stupid idea.

[goonys evil twin]

One of the reasons why I'm so high on Matt Murton is because he didn't come through our system. I have a feeling he's going to refute your theory about how platooning a young player can mess with his development. I think he's going to be a very fine player even after platooning last year.

 

He didn't really platoon last year. He spent most of the time starting in the minors. Then platooned for 2 months and finally started nearly everyday down the stretch. I don't have a problem introducing a guy as a platoon hitter for 20-30 games, especially when he's not an elite prospect.

[frostwyrm]

One of the reasons why I'm so high on Matt Murton is because he didn't come through our system. I have a feeling he's going to refute your theory about how platooning a young player can mess with his development. I think he's going to be a very fine player even after platooning last year.

 

He didn't really platoon last year. He spent most of the time starting in the minors. Then platooned for 2 months and finally started nearly everyday down the stretch. I don't have a problem introducing a guy as a platoon hitter for 20-30 games, especially when he's not an elite prospect.

 

I do have a problem with bringing up a rookie to face only LHP because there's way too much down time involved. Fortunately, Murton handled it well, but that doesn't mean it was smart. I don't believe a rookie should be promoted until the manager is prepared to let him face righties at least some of the time.

[Banghart]

In LA's, count the number of everyday position players they have that have come from their system. It's not a very big number. They had Izturis, and before that, who? LoDuca? Piazza? It's not as if LA's a factory of productive young players the way Atlanta does.

Wasn't Izturis really a product of Toronto's system. I seem to recall the Dodgers trading for Izturis. I could be wrong.

 

-Banghart