Some old prospect burnouts

[Guest]

I had pretty high hopes on Ty Griffin. I'm still holding out hope...........

 

Oh wait, he's probably like 40 now.

[Bull]

Andy Sisco

[Irrelevant Dude]

I had pretty high hopes on Ty Griffin. I'm still holding out hope...........

 

Oh wait, he's probably like 40 now.

Ty Griffin is 42, so that ship has sailed, but Earl Cunningham is still only 39 so he may still have a couple years left in him!

[NCCubFan]

I think Mike Harkey deserves some love in this thread (unless I overlooked him being mentioned in an earlier post). He was looking like a good pitcher until he thought he was Ozzie Smith and tore up his knee doing a cartwheel.

[Guest]

I think Mike Harkey deserves some love in this thread (unless I overlooked him being mentioned in an earlier post). He was looking like a good pitcher until he thought he was Ozzie Smith and tore up his knee doing a cartwheel.

 

I think the thread has focused more on the inability to produce bats, but I do agree that Harkey deserves lots of love.

[swordsman]

In recent years the Cubs have placed greater emphasis on pitchers. On that front they have been a lot more successful.

 

 

I thought that had been the case for a while. Develop a stockpile of arms and then trade them for the position players you need.

[jersey cubs fan]

In recent years the Cubs have placed greater emphasis on pitchers. On that front they have been a lot more successful.

 

 

I thought that had been the case for a while. Develop a stockpile of arms and then trade them for the position players you need.

 

It was the MacPhail plan starting in 1994, and it was a failure.

[biittner77]

In recent years the Cubs have placed greater emphasis on pitchers. On that front they have been a lot more successful.

 

 

I thought that had been the case for a while. Develop a stockpile of arms and then trade them for the position players you need.

 

It was the MacPhail plan starting in 1994, and it was a failure.

 

The plan worked in so far as developing pitchers. The problem came when they traded them for Juan Pierre or held on to them too long.

 

During the MacPhail Era the Cubs have put a lot of pitchers into the League: (off the top of my head)

Wood

Prior

Zambrano

Wells

Marmol

Guzman

Wuertz

Wellemeyer*

Nolasco*

Farnsworth

Marshall

Gallagher (he may be after MacPhail but under the same philosophy

Beltran whom they sold high on- sort of

Hill- had at least 1 good year for a playoff team.

Dontrelle Willis

 

There's probably more which basically comes to 1 a year that makes at least some positive impact with someone.

[jersey cubs fan]

The plan worked in so far as developing pitchers. The problem came when they traded them for Juan Pierre or held on to them too long.

 

The plan was to build the Braves 2.0, a team that would win consistently. They failed miserably. The fact that they actually did get a good amount of arms is meaningless. That was only part of the plan, and it didn't lead to consistent winning. They had 5 90+ loss season, only 2 90+ win seasons (and one required a 163rd game). Even discounting the first few seasons under this plan, they were 1032-1073 in 13 seasons after the plan was in place.

 

It was a failure, no ifs ands or buts.

[biittner77]

The plan worked in so far as developing pitchers. The problem came when they traded them for Juan Pierre or held on to them too long.

 

The plan was to build the Braves 2.0, a team that would win consistently. They failed miserably. The fact that they actually did get a good amount of arms is meaningless. That was only part of the plan, and it didn't lead to consistent winning. They had 5 90+ loss season, only 2 90+ win seasons (and one required a 163rd game). Even discounting the first few seasons under this plan, they were 1032-1073 in 13 seasons after the plan was in place.

 

It was a failure, no ifs ands or buts.

 

Since 2003 They've made the ploffs 3 times and finished 2nd twice. That's not reaching the ultimate goal but it's not utter failure either.

[jersey cubs fan]

The plan worked in so far as developing pitchers. The problem came when they traded them for Juan Pierre or held on to them too long.

 

The plan was to build the Braves 2.0, a team that would win consistently. They failed miserably. The fact that they actually did get a good amount of arms is meaningless. That was only part of the plan, and it didn't lead to consistent winning. They had 5 90+ loss season, only 2 90+ win seasons (and one required a 163rd game). Even discounting the first few seasons under this plan, they were 1032-1073 in 13 seasons after the plan was in place.

 

It was a failure, no ifs ands or buts.

 

Since 2003 They've made the ploffs 3 times and finished 2nd twice. That's not reaching the ultimate goal but it's not utter failure either.

 

This is a ridiculous reply to what I wrote. The plan was implemented in 1994, it failed. The new plan in 2007/2008 was just to spend a ton of cash and hope for the best, it worked moderately, but still left them well short of being Braves 2.0.

 

Seriously, it's moronic to pretend the plan was anything but a failure. In 1994 they decided to try and emulate the Braves by concentrating all theirs efforts on pitchers and trading the excess for bats. It failed. Miserably.

[swordsman]

The plan worked in so far as developing pitchers. The problem came when they traded them for Juan Pierre or held on to them too long.

 

The plan was to build the Braves 2.0, a team that would win consistently. They failed miserably. The fact that they actually did get a good amount of arms is meaningless. That was only part of the plan, and it didn't lead to consistent winning. They had 5 90+ loss season, only 2 90+ win seasons (and one required a 163rd game). Even discounting the first few seasons under this plan, they were 1032-1073 in 13 seasons after the plan was in place.

 

It was a failure, no ifs ands or buts.

 

Since 2003 They've made the ploffs 3 times and finished 2nd twice. That's not reaching the ultimate goal but it's not utter failure either.

 

This is a ridiculous reply to what I wrote. The plan was implemented in 1994, it failed. The new plan in 2007/2008 was just to spend a ton of cash and hope for the best, it worked moderately, but still left them well short of being Braves 2.0.

 

Seriously, it's moronic to pretend the plan was anything but a failure. In 1994 they decided to try and emulate the Braves by concentrating all theirs efforts on pitchers and trading the excess for bats. It failed. Miserably.

 

Seems like the failure was in the execution, not the plan itself.

 

Don't blame The Plan. The Plan was sound. (I think that is a quote from a Seinfeld, not my actual thoughts on the matter.)

[Bull]

The plan worked fine from a development standpoint. If Baker hadn't broken Woody and Prior, there would be a lot different tone to this discussion if we would be having it at all.

[jersey cubs fan]

The plan worked fine from a development standpoint. If Baker hadn't broken Woody and Prior, there would be a lot different tone to this discussion if we would be having it at all.

 

But pitchers get hurt all the time, which is why it's risky to count on pitchers to carry your franchise.

 

The plan did not work fine. The plan was to designed to make the Cubs as successful as the Braves, and they weren't even close. It is absolutely absurd to suggest the plan worked fine from any standpoint. They failed. They had a miserable record and were terrible far more frequently than they were good.

[swordsman]

The plan worked fine from a development standpoint. If Baker hadn't broken Woody and Prior, there would be a lot different tone to this discussion if we would be having it at all.

 

But pitchers get hurt all the time, which is why it's risky to count on pitchers to carry your franchise.

 

The plan did not work fine. The plan was to designed to make the Cubs as successful as the Braves, and they weren't even close. It is absolutely absurd to suggest the plan worked fine from any standpoint. They failed. They had a miserable record and were terrible far more frequently than they were good.

 

In your opinion, was the plan flawed and therefore a bad plan or was it a sound plan poorly executed?

[jersey cubs fan]

 

In your opinion, was the plan flawed and therefore a bad plan or was it a sound plan poorly executed?

 

I think the plan has merit, but ultimately is far too risky and unnecessarily limited. It's why I wanted to draft Tex over Prior. Pitchers are just risky investments. It made no sense to try to do what Atlanta did by drafting and developing pitchers, for multiple reasons: Atlanta didn't draft and develop two of their best pitchers (Maddux/Smoltz), Atlanta produced plenty of bats through their own system and Atlanta's run of success and stable pitching was both unprecedented and impossible to duplicate.

 

Perhaps if they weren't such backwards thinking slaves to conventional wisdom it would have worked, and maybe you can say if it wasn't for Baker it would have worked. I disagree with that assessment, especially when you consider Baker was hardly the first pitcher abusing champion of small ball tactics they employed, and also when you consider that the offense sucked for so many years. It's obvious they failed miserably in acquiring "outside" bats. They have been a mediocre-to-bad offense almost every year.

 

So, maybe it had some merit and maybe it could have worked, but the fact of the matter is the plan did not work, it did not come close to working, and it was an abject failure. The record speaks for itself. The plan was implemented 16 years ago, there have been 15 seasons played, the record is well under .500. They made the playoffs once in the first 8 years (and that was a wild card), twice in the first 12 years and just 4 times overall. They lost 90+ more than twice as often as they won 90+.

 

It failed.

[Bull]

The plan worked fine from a development standpoint. If Baker hadn't broken Woody and Prior, there would be a lot different tone to this discussion if we would be having it at all.

 

But pitchers get hurt all the time, which is why it's risky to count on pitchers to carry your franchise.

 

The plan did not work fine. The plan was to designed to make the Cubs as successful as the Braves, and they weren't even close. It is absolutely absurd to suggest the plan worked fine from any standpoint. They failed. They had a miserable record and were terrible far more frequently than they were good.

 

It wasn't risky, it just wasn't idiot proof.

[jersey cubs fan]

The plan worked fine from a development standpoint. If Baker hadn't broken Woody and Prior, there would be a lot different tone to this discussion if we would be having it at all.

 

But pitchers get hurt all the time, which is why it's risky to count on pitchers to carry your franchise.

 

The plan did not work fine. The plan was to designed to make the Cubs as successful as the Braves, and they weren't even close. It is absolutely absurd to suggest the plan worked fine from any standpoint. They failed. They had a miserable record and were terrible far more frequently than they were good.

 

It wasn't risky, it just wasn't idiot proof.

 

It wasn't risky? They implemented a plan that failed miserably but there was no risk with the plan?

[NewUserName]

Atlanta's version of the Atlanta plan seemed to involve several quality position players becoming major league regulars through the years.

 

I think Jersey mentioned that he would rather the Cubs drafted Tex instead of Prior. Is it possible that Texieria would not have developed into the player he did if he was drafted by the Cubs?

[jersey cubs fan]

Atlanta's version of the Atlanta plan seemed to involve several quality position players becoming major league regulars through the years.

 

I think Jersey mentioned that he would rather the Cubs drafted Tex instead of Prior. Is it possible that Texieria would not have developed into the player he did if he was drafted by the Cubs?

 

Anything's possible, but that's unlikely. He spent 1 full season in the minors where he dominated, was called up and pretty successful from the start. He didn't need much, if any, developing.

 

But that's beside the point. The other thing you mentioned, that Atlanta actually produced their own hitters, is a major part of the point. Chicago tried something that was dumb, largely ignoring position players (and then focusing on the wrong ones when they did pay attention - free swinging athletic high schoolers) with the excuse of trading/signing bats when they needed, but they failed to trade for and sign the bats they needed, which is why the offense was so bad for so long after the plan was implemented.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

The free-swinging athletic types is still an organizational problem, isn't it?

[Guest]

The free-swinging athletic types is still an organizational problem, isn't it?

 

I can't think of a draftee that really matches that description. Colvin I suppose, even if he's not super high on the athleticism scale. They have a lot of guys who are pretty good athletes and maybe strike out too much(Thomas, Flaherty, and Jackson immediately come to mind), but they all walk a good bit and don't match the Pattersonian model that it seems you're talking about.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

The free-swinging athletic types is still an organizational problem, isn't it?

 

I can't think of a draftee that really matches that description. Colvin I suppose, even if he's not super high on the athleticism scale. They have a lot of guys who are pretty good athletes and maybe strike out too much(Thomas, Flaherty, and Jackson immediately come to mind), but they all walk a good bit and don't match the Pattersonian model that it seems you're talking about.

 

Cool. I was actually asking, not being rhetorical. I'm not that up on the minors these days.

[jersey cubs fan]

The free-swinging athletic types is still an organizational problem, isn't it?

 

I can't think of a draftee that really matches that description. Colvin I suppose, even if he's not super high on the athleticism scale. They have a lot of guys who are pretty good athletes and maybe strike out too much(Thomas, Flaherty, and Jackson immediately come to mind), but they all walk a good bit and don't match the Pattersonian model that it seems you're talking about.

 

Cool. I was actually asking, not being rhetorical. I'm not that up on the minors these days.

 

The recent years they seem to have gone after a bunch of somewhat safe, minimal ceiling guys all over the place, as if the new goal is to produce as many guys as possible who can make the major leagues, even if none of them are particularly good. Of course there's still Vitters, but he's not all that athletic.

[CubColtPacer]

The free-swinging athletic types is still an organizational problem, isn't it?

 

I can't think of a draftee that really matches that description. Colvin I suppose, even if he's not super high on the athleticism scale. They have a lot of guys who are pretty good athletes and maybe strike out too much(Thomas, Flaherty, and Jackson immediately come to mind), but they all walk a good bit and don't match the Pattersonian model that it seems you're talking about.

 

Cool. I was actually asking, not being rhetorical. I'm not that up on the minors these days.

 

The recent years they seem to have gone after a bunch of somewhat safe, minimal ceiling guys all over the place, as if the new goal is to produce as many guys as possible who can make the major leagues, even if none of them are particularly good. Of course there's still Vitters, but he's not all that athletic.

 

I disagree that they are going with a safe approach at least at the top of the draft. Their first 3 rounds (where you are going to get the potential elite players) have had at least as many risky with big upsides as safe picks in the last 3-4 years. I'd put Vitters, Thomas, Shafer, Carpenter, and Jackson as the risky picks. Donaldson, Cashner, Flaherty, and Lemahieu are somewhat safer picks with Kirk somewhere in between.