How long would it take to restock our minor league system?

[USSoccer]

In a thread about restocking the minor league system, I would just like to point out that MacPhail has had over a dozen years to turn things around, and Hendry has been there most of the time. Andy came in and saw an entire organization in turmoil, with crap for a minor league system and practically zero major league talent. He's failed miserably with the "draft and develop pitchers, trade for bats later" strategy. With the resources the Cubs have, they should be able to win 90+ games in 2007 and improve the farm system. By 2008 they should be a dominant franchise. But going off more than a decade of proof, there's little to no hope this actually happens.

 

The "develop arms and then trade them for bats" isn't a bad idea, but it's his GM that has held onto his arms much, much longer than he should have. Juan Cruz for one should have been dealt before 2003 if he wasn't going to be used, when he still had good value.

 

I think it's a bad idea. Arms are inconsistent and unreliable. It's nice to develop a lot of them, but it's necessary to develop position players. By going into it with almost a complete disregard for position players, the Cubs were doomed to carry on the tradition of non development.

 

I see what you're saying, and am not trying to downplay the importance of developing your own position players, but what I am saying is that if his (somewhat flawed) plan would have been implemented more effectively, you'd probably see a better ML product on the field.

[goonys evil twin]

I see what you're saying, and am not trying to downplay the importance of developing your own position players, but what I am saying is that if his (somewhat flawed) plan would have been implemented more effectively, you'd probably see a better ML product on the field.

 

Possibly it would have been better, but better than this is not necessarily acceptable. A dozen years, and one 90 win season. I think it's more than just the implementation, the theory is flawed from the top. They failed to recognize that Altanta actually developed great position players. I don't know of a single recent WS champ that didn't develop a very good bat from within, aside from the DBacks, that haven't even been in existence as long as MacPhail has led the Cubs.

 

You also have to remember that MacPhail's theory wasn't just to virtually ignore position prospects, but it was also to steer clear of any and all big time free agent bats. He dipped a toe into the Hampton market, but never allowed a sniff at any difference making bats. It would be one thing to devote all minor league resources on pitchers, and then to sign guys like Vladdy, Beltran, Rodriguez, etc. It's entirely different to put your minor league resources on pitching, then only acquire bats that you can get on the cheap.

[Guest]

I disagree with the supposition that the Cubs have "completely" ignored drafting and developing position players over the past 10 years. Off the top of my head, at least 4 of the top picks in the drafts have been position players and a slew of second & third rounders have been hitters. They've done an awful job picking and developing, but they haven't been ignoring that side of things.

 

They've merely been incompetent at it.

[JeffH]

There's a new slogan McDonough can use:

 

Chicago Cubs - Incompetent, but not apathetic!

[Guest]

There's a new slogan McDonough can use:

 

Chicago Cubs - Incompetent, but not apathetic!

We suck, but we're trying hard!

[goonys evil twin]

I disagree with the supposition that the Cubs have "completely" ignored drafting and developing position players over the past 10 years. Off the top of my head, at least 4 of the top picks in the drafts have been position players and a slew of second & third rounders have been hitters. They've done an awful job picking and developing, but they haven't been ignoring that side of things.

 

They've merely been incompetent at it.

 

You're right, they did draft some guys. But from day one, they said the strategy was to draft and develop arms, and trade for bats later. And sure enough, more than a dozen years later and they've yet to develop a decent major league hitter. They haven't completely ignored it, but I'd say they've put about 5% of their efforts into developing bats. And when you put very little effort into something that you aren't very good at, the results are inevitably going to be awful.

[Guest]

I disagree with the supposition that the Cubs have "completely" ignored drafting and developing position players over the past 10 years. Off the top of my head, at least 4 of the top picks in the drafts have been position players and a slew of second & third rounders have been hitters. They've done an awful job picking and developing, but they haven't been ignoring that side of things.

 

They've merely been incompetent at it.

 

You're right, they did draft some guys. But from day one, they said the strategy was to draft and develop arms, and trade for bats later. And sure enough, more than a dozen years later and they've yet to develop a decent major league hitter. They haven't completely ignored it, but I'd say they've put about 5% of their efforts into developing bats. And when you put very little effort into something that you aren't very good at, the results are inevitably going to be awful.

I've never, ever seen a quote from the cubs that said that was their strategy. Ever. I've seen a lot of fans guess at that strategy, but I've never seen the Cubs make a statement that even hinted in that direction.

 

Over the past 10 years, 40% of the first round picks have been hitters. I haven't checked, but I'd guess that at least 50% of the second & third round picks have been hitters. They have just as many roving instructors for the hitters as they have for the pitchers in the system. They went out and hired a former major league hitting instructor and assigned him to their upper minors. I think you'd find it very, very, very hard to support you claim that they're putting 5% of their efforts into developing hitters. I simply cannot see how you can come up with anything close to that.

[JeffH]

Well, they may have been position players, but they certainly weren't "hitters".

[Guest]

Well, they may have been position players, but they certainly weren't "hitters".

I'm so glad that it's become the popular thing to do to try and be wittily demeaning of anything associated with the team.

[JeffH]

Well, this management team has turned our beloved Cubs into an altogether despicable outfit.

[Guest]

Well, this management team has turned our beloved Cubs into an altogether despicable outfit.

Actually, no, they haven't.

 

It has been an awful year, though.

[goonys evil twin]

Well, this management team has turned our beloved Cubs into an altogether despicable outfit.

Actually, no, they haven't.

 

It has been an awful year, though.

 

Are we forgetting 2005? How about the entire MacPhail era? This isn't a flukey off year.

[goonys evil twin]

I've never, ever seen a quote from the cubs that said that was their strategy. Ever. I've seen a lot of fans guess at that strategy, but I've never seen the Cubs make a statement that even hinted in that direction.

 

Well, maybe you just didn't read much about the Cubs in the 90's, because they certainly did make statements like that, repeatedly. The plan was to draft and develop a plethora of arms, and trade for bats when needed.

[Guest]

bats like barrett, lee, and ramirez - the cornerstones of the offense?

[WrigleyField 22]

bats like barrett, lee, and ramirez - the cornerstones of the offense?

 

Also traded for Nomar. Although we don't still have him, he qualifies under this category. Even Lofton to an extent, even though he was clearly just a rental player.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

I'm no sure that developing arms to trade for bats is a bad idea, I just think that Hendry hasn't utilized that philosophy correctly.

 

He seems to develop such an attachment to his young arms that he doesn't trade them and overvalues them at a time when a trade might be prudent. Then, at other times, he trades them for something that we don't need ala Pierre.

 

He held on to Cruz for too long and Cruz's value was at an all-time low when he was traded. While Hill has no redeemed some of his value, there may have been a time when he could have been a package for a player that would have helped us a great deal. Did we keep Guzman too long?

 

Also, it seems that anytime we deal a player for prospects, we are still trying to get arms back rather than position players. Getting players like Murton seems to be the exception rather than the norm.

 

I'm sure I'm over-generalizing a bit here, but I'm not so sure the philosophy is as flawed as the implementation of that philosophy has been.

[Lefty]

How about restocking, or rather stocking, the major league team first.

[WrigleyField 22]

How about restocking, or rather stocking, the major league team first.

 

Both could be done at the same time.

 

 

Multitasking!

[Guest]

How about restocking, or rather stocking, the major league team first.

 

This has to happen at the same time not first. Organizational players should be a vital part of the major league team. Right now we have one - Murton (Cedeno does not look like a viable major league option right now). This uses a lot of resources.