Hosmer, Moustakas called up

[javy knows my name]

Just call him a dumb [expletive], Dew. You know you want to.

[Vinestal]

Our top picks have been pretty terrible for years now. I'd really like to see management and scouts turned over in the next couple years. We have done terrible things with our higher picks.

 

Since Tim Wilken took over as scouting director in December of 2005 our top picks have been:

 

2006: Tyler Colvin

2007: Josh Vitters

2008: Andrew Cashner

2009: Brett Jackson

2010: Hayden Simpson

 

Two of those have reached the majors, one is generally considered our top prospect (Jackson), one is still ranked in the top 5 of the Cubs' system (Vitters) and one has been slowed by illnesses and it's still far too early to tell (Simpson). Opinions on these guys vary, but to call them "terrible" is a bit of an overstatement.

 

At what point do you write off Vitters? He's been pretty bad as far as I can tell. Hayden who is in low A has been pretty bad so far. Cashner shows some promise if he can stay healthy and Colvin is quickly burying himself as any kind of a prospect. Brett Jackson maybe the one lone ray of hope in that list. I gotta start avoiding these threads everyone left here is drinking the blue koolaid. Good luck with your delusions of grandeur I'll just stick to reading post in the minor league forums for news that's about all these forums are good for these days.

[javy knows my name]

We'll miss your awesome contributions

[Guest]

Our top picks have been pretty terrible for years now. I'd really like to see management and scouts turned over in the next couple years. We have done terrible things with our higher picks.

 

Since Tim Wilken took over as scouting director in December of 2005 our top picks have been:

 

2006: Tyler Colvin

2007: Josh Vitters

2008: Andrew Cashner

2009: Brett Jackson

2010: Hayden Simpson

 

Two of those have reached the majors, one is generally considered our top prospect (Jackson), one is still ranked in the top 5 of the Cubs' system (Vitters) and one has been slowed by illnesses and it's still far too early to tell (Simpson). Opinions on these guys vary, but to call them "terrible" is a bit of an overstatement.

 

At what point do you write off Vitters? He's been pretty bad as far as I can tell. Hayden who is in low A has been pretty bad so far. Cashner shows some promise if he can stay healthy and Colvin is quickly burying himself as any kind of a prospect. Brett Jackson maybe the one lone ray of hope in that list. I gotta start avoiding these threads everyone left here is drinking the blue koolaid. Good luck with your delusions of grandeur I'll just stick to reading post in the minor league forums for news that's about all these forums are good for these days.

 

You seriously de-value Cashner if you're saying the bolded.

 

Regarding Hayden, I don't know that a 4.15 ERA is pretty bad. And he's only had 26 innings, it seems far too early to write him off.

[illiniguy]

Our top picks have been pretty terrible for years now. I'd really like to see management and scouts turned over in the next couple years. We have done terrible things with our higher picks.

 

Since Tim Wilken took over as scouting director in December of 2005 our top picks have been:

 

2006: Tyler Colvin

2007: Josh Vitters

2008: Andrew Cashner

2009: Brett Jackson

2010: Hayden Simpson

 

Two of those have reached the majors, one is generally considered our top prospect (Jackson), one is still ranked in the top 5 of the Cubs' system (Vitters) and one has been slowed by illnesses and it's still far too early to tell (Simpson). Opinions on these guys vary, but to call them "terrible" is a bit of an overstatement.

 

At what point do you write off Vitters? He's been pretty bad as far as I can tell. Hayden who is in low A has been pretty bad so far. Cashner shows some promise if he can stay healthy and Colvin is quickly burying himself as any kind of a prospect. Brett Jackson maybe the one lone ray of hope in that list. I gotta start avoiding these threads everyone left here is drinking the blue koolaid. Good luck with your delusions of grandeur I'll just stick to reading post in the minor league forums for news that's about all these forums are good for these days.

 

You seriously de-value Cashner if you're saying the bolded.

 

Regarding Hayden, I don't know that a 4.15 ERA is pretty bad. And he's only had 26 innings, it seems far too early to write him off.

Simpson has had long enough. Put a bullet in him.

[Keener98]

Man, its amazing what people can say on here anymore. Not even sure why there are still "mods" on the board.

[javy knows my name]

I agree; for too long have people been able to spout all sorts of idiocy with impunity

[sneakypower]

Man, its amazing what people can say on here anymore. Not even sure why there are still "mods" on the board.

think of the children!

 

oh, nevermind that, actually

[Splendid Splinter]

At what point do you write off Vitters? He's been pretty bad as far as I can tell. Hayden who is in low A has been pretty bad so far. Cashner shows some promise if he can stay healthy and Colvin is quickly burying himself as any kind of a prospect. Brett Jackson maybe the one lone ray of hope in that list. I gotta start avoiding these threads everyone left here is drinking the blue koolaid. Good luck with your delusions of grandeur I'll just stick to reading post in the minor league forums for news that's about all these forums are good for these days.

 

 

You write off Vitters when he turns 25 and he's not in the majors yet... Which means he got another 3 year after his bday this August. The dude is "only" 21 and is in AA. He's been pretty bad? Outside of his lack of walks and probably defense, what else has he been "pretty bad" at? Not every or even most prospects are going to make it to the Majors at age 20-22. Say he makes it to the majors at age 24... That's still pretty young.

 

Actually what is the average age of a player making their MLB debut? Just curious if anybody knows this.

 

You're really going to talk about Hayden already when he got drafted not even a year ago? Let just wait to see the final numbers in his first year before saying anything. I would post here a lot more if there wasn't guys like you just spitting out negative crap like this post above. I'm not drinking the blue koolaid as I have say some negative stuff before (mainly Colvin and guys who really do deserve the negative comments- as I don't think Colvin is all that, but I think he would end up as a solid 4th OF/power bat on the bench type). I really wasn't expecting Colvin to do this bad, but I wasn't expecting what he did last year either.

 

LOL at the minor league forums comment... you talk about the delusions of grandeur and drinking the blue koolaid, yet the minor league forum is what's good for these days??? They hype up pretty much everyone in the minors in that forum.

[Little Slide Rooter]

I remember hearing from BA, BP, or someone like that that something along the lines of The Cubs farm system may very well have more future major leaguers than any system in baseball, but nobody who projects to be a superstar.

[illiniguy]

Maybe I should have used green font. It's way too soon to do anything but keep trotting Hayden out and hoping he starts to knock more rust off.

[imb]

Man, its amazing what people can say on here anymore. Not even sure why there are still "mods" on the board.

think of the children!

 

oh, nevermind that, actually

 

ouch

[dew1679666265]

At what point do you write off Vitters? He's been pretty bad as far as I can tell. Hayden who is in low A has been pretty bad so far. Cashner shows some promise if he can stay healthy and Colvin is quickly burying himself as any kind of a prospect. Brett Jackson maybe the one lone ray of hope in that list. I gotta start avoiding these threads everyone left here is drinking the blue koolaid. Good luck with your delusions of grandeur I'll just stick to reading post in the minor league forums for news that's about all these forums are good for these days.

 

Colvin and Vitters are probably the most questionable players on that list, though Colvin's major league career to this point (including last year and the start this year) makes him look like a ML player of some degree - I tend to think he's more of a 4th OF type who won't walk enough to merit a starting role, but the organization thinks more highly of him. Vitters hasn't had a huge amount of success in the minors, but as has been mentioned, is very, very young for being in AA. At some point he's going to have to produce at a high level, but he has an impressive skillset (including a lightning fast bat) that could translate well.

 

Cashner has shown the ability to utterly dominate throughout the minors. He struggled in a bullpen role last year, but I'd argue he should have still been starting in AAA at that point. Durability is a major concern and probably the only one with him - if he can stay healthy and strengthen his arm, he'll be a top of the rotation starter. Jackson has also been dominating the minors and is still young for his league. He may never become a superstar, but it's really hard to argue he won't become a legitimate starting OF - perhaps even a strong hitting CF - within the next 1-2 years.

 

Simpson hasn't been a pro for a full season and, so far, has dealt with mono and another significant sickness. He's currently pitching well underweight and his velocity is still down. It's simply far too early to say anything either way about Hayden.

 

As for delusions of grandeur, the minor league system hasn't been as good as it should be at this point overall, but has seen significant improvement since Wilken took over. There's a lot of promise throughout the minors, but it's way too short on legit superstar type players (McNutt might qualify, maybe Jackson or Vitters if they really take off).

[dew1679666265]

I remember hearing from BA, BP, or someone like that that something along the lines of The Cubs farm system may very well have more future major leaguers than any system in baseball, but nobody who projects to be a superstar.

 

That's entirely possible. Whether by design or accident, the Cubs have definitely gone the quantity over high end quality route. That may work perfectly if we can go out and get a Pujols in free agency, or it could result in the type of team we saw a lot in the 2000s - very good teams that didn't have the superstar type player to put them over the top.

[Little Slide Rooter]

I remember hearing from BA, BP, or someone like that that something along the lines of The Cubs farm system may very well have more future major leaguers than any system in baseball, but nobody who projects to be a superstar.

 

That's entirely possible. Whether by design or accident, the Cubs have definitely gone the quantity over high end quality route. That may work perfectly if we can go out and get a Pujols in free agency, or it could result in the type of team we saw a lot in the 2000s - very good teams that didn't have the superstar type player to put them over the top.

 

You keep saying if we get Pujols as anything more than a possibility. Id love to get Pujols and build around him, but you seem much more optimistic about it than I do. I just hope that if they do go after Pujols that they decide early so that they dont put all their eggs in that basket, lose out on him, lose out on Fielder, and then were stuck with the MLB consolation prize FA equivalant of Carlos Boozer.

[dew1679666265]

You keep saying if we get Pujols as anything more than a possibility. Id love to get Pujols and build around him, but you seem much more optimistic about it than I do. I just hope that if they do go after Pujols that they decide early so that they dont put all their eggs in that basket, lose out on him, lose out on Fielder, and then were stuck with the MLB consolation prize FA equivalant of Carlos Boozer.

 

It's a possibility, nothing more. But again, if Pujols hits free agency, we have everything he could be looking for and can offer more money than any other team out there.

[jersey cubs fan]

or it could result in the type of team we saw a lot in the 2000s - very good teams that didn't have the superstar type player to put them over the top.

 

 

Where do you come up with this nonsense?

 

 

The Cubs had one very good team in the 2000's. One. They won 90 games, once. They spent a ton of cash but lost 90 games three times as often as they won 90 games.

 

 

 

And furthermore, who cares if guys reached the majors? The fact that Tyler Colvin has reached the majors is not meaningful to the debate about how well the Cubs have drafted. He's a sub .300 OBP hitter in the majors. He was always a safe bet to make the majors, the problem is he stands very little chance of being good in the majors and wasn't worthy of the high selection. Andrew Cashner has reached the majors. Yay. He probably could have slotted right into the bullpen if that's what they wanted, but the question with him has always been about the ability to throw 6+ innings 30+ times a year.

[jersey cubs fan]

You write off Vitters when he turns 25 and he's not in the majors yet... Which means he got another 3 year after his bday this August. The dude is "only" 21 and is in AA. He's been pretty bad? Outside of his lack of walks and probably defense, what else has he been "pretty bad" at?

 

Other than the lack of production on offense and poor showing on defense, I can't think of anything he's been bad at.

[Sammy Sofa]

I'm actually on gooney's side not being wowed by the Cubs at all in the last decade, but I love the arbitrary "if they didn't win 90 games they [expletive] sucked" argument. Because 90 is the almighty line to cross. Not 89 wins, which they did once, and not 88 wins, which they did twice, but 90. Anything, ANYTHING less is out the window.

 

Personally, I'd point to the fact they only made the playoffs/won the division three times in the decade as a more glaring accurate example of how poorly the team was run despite its resources than just randomly deciding that if the team didn't win 90 games then the season wasn't a good one.

[jersey cubs fan]

I'm actually on gooney's side not being wowed by the Cubs at all in the last decade, but I love the arbitrary "if they didn't win 90 games they [expletive] sucked" argument. Because 90 is the almighty line to cross. Not 89 wins, which they did once, and not 88 wins, which they did twice, but 90. Anything, ANYTHING less is out the window.

 

Personally, I'd point to the fact they only made the playoffs/won the division three times in the decade as a more glaring accurate example of how poorly the team was run despite its resources than just randomly deciding that if the team didn't win 90 games then the season wasn't a good one.

 

Personally I think 90 is a pretty low threshold for being a so called "very good team". And I wasn't the won who pretended they did it a lot in the 2000's. If you aren't winning 90, you are pretty much in a large group of average teams. The Cubs had 1 very good team in the 2000's. They snuck into the playoffs 2 others times thanks to no competition, but they were not very good.

[Sammy Sofa]

I'm actually on gooney's side not being wowed by the Cubs at all in the last decade, but I love the arbitrary "if they didn't win 90 games they [expletive] sucked" argument. Because 90 is the almighty line to cross. Not 89 wins, which they did once, and not 88 wins, which they did twice, but 90. Anything, ANYTHING less is out the window.

 

Personally, I'd point to the fact they only made the playoffs/won the division three times in the decade as a more glaring accurate example of how poorly the team was run despite its resources than just randomly deciding that if the team didn't win 90 games then the season wasn't a good one.

 

Personally I think 90 is a pretty low threshold for being a so called "very good team". And I wasn't the won who pretended they did it a lot in the 2000's. If you aren't winning 90, you are pretty much in a large group of average teams. The Cubs had 1 very good team in the 2000's. They snuck into the playoffs 2 others times thanks to no competition, but they were not very good.

 

Didn't say they were, but you're setting your criteria up as being rather strangely arbitrary when you set a number of wins that the team missed by 2 or less games three times. Given the abundance of arguments and evidence that can be used to point out how they weren't a good team it just struck me as an odd thing to settle on.

[dew1679666265]

 

Where do you come up with this nonsense?

 

 

The Cubs had one very good team in the 2000's. One. They won 90 games, once. They spent a ton of cash but lost 90 games three times as often as they won 90 games.

 

I probably shouldn't have used the term "very." That wasn't exactly the point of my post, though. I was using that as an example of what this franchise could be if we don't sign or develop a superstar type player in the near future. Our upside would be the best teams of the 2000s (whether you want to call them very good, good or average is irrelevant) and they'd be susceptible to fluctuations like we saw in that decade.

 

The primary point of the post was to say that it's very nice to see the good, young talent we have on the brink of the majors, but we need a superstar or two somewhere in there to really make the team great and surpass the good teams of the 2000s.

 

And furthermore, who cares if guys reached the majors? The fact that Tyler Colvin has reached the majors is not meaningful to the debate about how well the Cubs have drafted. He's a sub .300 OBP hitter in the majors. He was always a safe bet to make the majors, the problem is he stands very little chance of being good in the majors and wasn't worthy of the high selection. Andrew Cashner has reached the majors. Yay. He probably could have slotted right into the bullpen if that's what they wanted, but the question with him has always been about the ability to throw 6+ innings 30+ times a year.

 

Making the majors, even for a first round pick, is meaningful insomuch that it eliminates you from being a "terrible" pick. I'd like to see much better than a 4th OF - even one who can make the majors fairly quickly - out of the 13th pick in the draft, but that doesn't mean Colvin was a terrible pick.

 

As for Cashner, he dominated the minors and is currently a starter in the majors. I've already made the point in this thread that there are definite questions about Cashner - primarily surrounding his durability - but there's no way you can argue that he was a terrible pick. If he never gets more durable or turns out to be injury prone, then he wasn't a particularly good pick. But "terrible" is going too far and that's what I was responding to with that post.

[Derwood]

Hosmer with a HR tonight against the Yankees

[Little Slide Rooter]

The Royals are now calling up LHP Danny Duffy. Is he another on of their stud prospects?

[javy knows my name]

The Royals are now calling up LHP Danny Duffy. Is he another on of their stud prospects?

 

YUP