CONFIRMED: CUBS GET SOLER!!! 9yrs/30 mill

[SouthSideRyan]

Youkilis-Ellsbury is a pretty nice no track record.

[Guest]

Youkilis-Ellsbury is a pretty nice no track record.

The Cubs have no track record.

[jersey cubs fan]

Youkilis-Ellsbury is a pretty nice no track record.

The Cubs have no track record.

 

"The Cubs" track record has to be differentiated by who was running them. You can't look at the Cubs organization right now and say "they have a history of developing some pitchers but no hitters" just because that is was the Andy MacPhail era Cubs did.

[Guest]

Youkilis-Ellsbury is a pretty nice no track record.

The Cubs have no track record.

 

"The Cubs" track record has to be differentiated by who was running them. You can't look at the Cubs organization right now and say "they have a history of developing some pitchers but no hitters" just because that is was the Andy MacPhail era Cubs did.

OK. Like I said, I'm cautiously optimistic. I suppose my main problem is that the change in leadership is significant of nothing until they show they can produce players like they did in the past. I don't think changing leadership automatically means the Cubs system is that much better than it was a year ago. It seems to me that a lot of people are giving really rosy prognostications simply because Theo/Hoyer are now running the show.

[jersey cubs fan]

OK. Like I said, I'm cautiously optimistic. I suppose my main problem is that the change in leadership is significant of nothing until they show they can produce players like they did in the past. I don't think changing leadership automatically means the Cubs system is that much better than it was a year ago. It seems to me that a lot of people are giving really rosy prognostications simply because Theo/Hoyer are now running the show.

 

That is because a system is only as good as the people who are running it. The Cubs system isn't some separate entity that operates on its own. It's not some amusement park with the same old rides no matter who owns and operates the thing. The system is whoever is making the decisions to draft and sign potential prospects and who is developing those players. A change in leadership from incompetent buffoons to pretty damn successful people does automatically make the system better. If they suddenly morph into morons somehow, that will be a problem, but I don't know why somebody would assume that would happen.

[CubColtPacer]

Youkilis-Ellsbury is a pretty nice no track record.

The Cubs have no track record.

 

"The Cubs" track record has to be differentiated by who was running them. You can't look at the Cubs organization right now and say "they have a history of developing some pitchers but no hitters" just because that is was the Andy MacPhail era Cubs did.

 

Not to mention that while the Cubs have been bad overall lately at bringing up talent, they've been better at bringing up hitters than pitchers in recent years. Soto and Castro are great hitters for their positions. Barney is ok. And Jackson is on the way. That's been much better than the pitching they've been developing recently. And then there are bunches of hitters at the lower levels.

[Guest]

I'm curious what about the spring training results indicate a lack of plate discipline:

 

Rizzo 33AB/3BB

Jackson 29AB/6BB

Vitters 23AB/3BB

Lake 21AB/3BB

 

Those are 4 of the 5 top prospects to appear with at least 20 ab. Szczur didn't fare as well, but has never played above A+.

[CubColtPacer]

Youkilis-Ellsbury is a pretty nice no track record.

The Cubs have no track record.

 

"The Cubs" track record has to be differentiated by who was running them. You can't look at the Cubs organization right now and say "they have a history of developing some pitchers but no hitters" just because that is was the Andy MacPhail era Cubs did.

OK. Like I said, I'm cautiously optimistic. I suppose my main problem is that the change in leadership is significant of nothing until they show they can produce players like they did in the past. I don't think changing leadership automatically means the Cubs system is that much better than it was a year ago. It seems to me that a lot of people are giving really rosy prognostications simply because Theo/Hoyer are now running the show.

 

Theo/Hoyer is just one factor why the system is better than a year ago. The large amount of money they spent on the draft last year helped. The trades they made this offseason and the international signings they made this year helped. The amount of raw talent has been greatly increased since just one year ago. Adding in the player development skills that Theo/Hoyer bring just add to the movement going on in the system right now.

[NewUserName]

I trust Ricketts, Theo and Hoyer will get things changed, but the Cubs poor track record of drafting/signing and developing positional players has been a long term issue that goes way beyond one or two regimes. Heck it covered both the Wrigleys and the Tribunes ownership years. Most of the issues were both ownership groups never really made player development a top priority with the checkbook. Under the Wrigley's the Cubs were the last MLB team to create their own minor league system. That kind of thinking stayed with ownership until they sold. The Tribune was obviously more into marketing. Ricketts clearly investing a lot of money into player development has to be a huge upside for the future of the Cub's system.

[MSG T]

I'm curious what about the spring training results indicate a lack of plate discipline:

 

Rizzo 33AB/3BB

Jackson 29AB/6BB

Vitters 23AB/3BB

Lake 21AB/3BB

 

Those are 4 of the 5 top prospects to appear with at least 20 ab. Szczur didn't fare as well, but has never played above A+.

 

 

In just taking a very quick glance at their rates, it appears they are all either at or well ahead of their previous walk rates. Rizzo looks to be just slightly behind his, but the rest appear on target.

 

Just a small sampling

 

Jackson - 215 PAs/28 BB (2011 Iowa), 297 PAs/45 BB (2011 Tenn) combined for 512 PAs/73 BBs = 14% BB rate (his spring was roughly 20%)

Vitters - 488 PA/22 BB (2011 Tenn), 228 PA/13 BB (2010 Tenn), 120 PA/8 BB (2010 Daytona) combined for 836 PA/43 BB = 5% BB rate (spring was roughly 13%)

 

That's not too bad, relatively speaking.

[seanimal]

Youkilis-Ellsbury is a pretty nice no track record.

The Cubs have no track record.

 

"The Cubs" track record has to be differentiated by who was running them. You can't look at the Cubs organization right now and say "they have a history of developing some pitchers but no hitters" just because that is was the Andy MacPhail era Cubs did.

OK. Like I said, I'm cautiously optimistic. I suppose my main problem is that the change in leadership is significant of nothing until they show they can produce players like they did in the past. I don't think changing leadership automatically means the Cubs system is that much better than it was a year ago. It seems to me that a lot of people are giving really rosy prognostications simply because Theo/Hoyer are now running the show.

 

that's prognosti-

 

oh wait you spelled that right

 

what about your boy lahair?

[Guest]

Youkilis-Ellsbury is a pretty nice no track record.

The Cubs have no track record.

 

"The Cubs" track record has to be differentiated by who was running them. You can't look at the Cubs organization right now and say "they have a history of developing some pitchers but no hitters" just because that is was the Andy MacPhail era Cubs did.

OK. Like I said, I'm cautiously optimistic. I suppose my main problem is that the change in leadership is significant of nothing until they show they can produce players like they did in the past. I don't think changing leadership automatically means the Cubs system is that much better than it was a year ago. It seems to me that a lot of people are giving really rosy prognostications simply because Theo/Hoyer are now running the show.

 

that's prognosti-

 

oh wait you spelled that right

 

what about your boy lahair?

"My boy LaHair isn't my boy. All I said was he could be a decent stop gap and he's cheap.

 

Anyway, what I'm not getting across very well is that although I'm really happy about the change in leadership in terms of the future, the change in leadership does not automatically make the talent the Cubs currently have any better. The system is still mediocre on position prospects and worse on pitching prospects.

[pitchcs]

But that's all we have to go by, what Theo/Jed have done in the past. I'm not sure how else you can evaluate?

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Anyway, what I'm not getting across very well is that although I'm really happy about the change in leadership in terms of the future, the change in leadership does not automatically make the talent the Cubs currently have any better. The system is still mediocre on position prospects and worse on pitching prospects.

 

 

Since last June, we've added Concepcion, Torreyes, Rizzo, a boatload of other Cubans and the great (or at least expensive) draft.

 

The system isn't getting better just because of who we hired. It's getting better because better players have been added to it.

[seanimal]

Anyway, what I'm not getting across very well is that although I'm really happy about the change in leadership in terms of the future, the change in leadership does not automatically make the talent the Cubs currently have any better. The system is still mediocre on position prospects and worse on pitching prospects.

 

the talent level in the cubs system has improved. not because THEO hath graced us with his presence, but because he and his team have added quality talent to the system since they've arrived. i think the question on everyone's minds is how well we will be able to convert talent into results through this regime's efforts at development. we won't really have a reliable answer until this draft class starts to blossom.

[Bull]

Anyway, what I'm not getting across very well is that although I'm really happy about the change in leadership in terms of the future, the change in leadership does not automatically make the talent the Cubs currently have any better. The system is still mediocre on position prospects and worse on pitching prospects.

 

 

Since last June, we've added Concepcion, Torreyes, Rizzo, a boatload of other Cubans and the great (or at least expensive) draft.

 

The system isn't getting better just because of who we hired. It's getting better because better players have been added to it.

intentional?

[Bull]

Anyway, what I'm not getting across very well is that although I'm really happy about the change in leadership in terms of the future, the change in leadership does not automatically make the talent the Cubs currently have any better. The system is still mediocre on position prospects and worse on pitching prospects.

 

the talent level in the cubs system has improved. not because THEO hath graced us with his presence, but because he and his team have added quality talent to the system since they've arrived. i think the question on everyone's minds is how well we will be able to convert talent into results through this regime's efforts at development. we won't really have a reliable answer until this draft class starts to blossom.

 

I think the expanded front office, change in approach organization wide, and hopefully added player development personnel with a congruent approach will improve the results even if the talent/tools level was the same.

[Little Slide Rooter]

Anyway, what I'm not getting across very well is that although I'm really happy about the change in leadership in terms of the future, the change in leadership does not automatically make the talent the Cubs currently have any better. The system is still mediocre on position prospects and worse on pitching prospects.

 

 

Since last June, we've added Concepcion, Torreyes, Rizzo, a boatload of other Cubans and the great (or at least expensive) draft.

 

The system isn't getting better just because of who we hired. It's getting better because better players have been added to it.

 

heh heh

[Clem Fandango]

I'm sure this has been posted, but if anyone needs reassurance...

 

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/building-through-the-draft-worst-of-the-worst/

 

The Cubs were 26th. The Red Sox were 1st. The people responsible for the Red Sox being 1st run our organization now.

 

Be happy, damnit

[jersey cubs fan]

I'm sure this has been posted, but if anyone needs reassurance...

 

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/building-through-the-draft-worst-of-the-worst/

 

The Cubs were 26th. The Red Sox were 1st. The people responsible for the Red Sox being 1st run our organization now.

 

Be happy, damnit

 

But they didn't do that with little Cubs logos on their golf shirts.

[Guest]

I'm sure this has been posted, but if anyone needs reassurance...

 

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/building-through-the-draft-worst-of-the-worst/

 

The Cubs were 26th. The Red Sox were 1st. The people responsible for the Red Sox being 1st run our organization now.

 

Be happy, damnit

 

I don't disagree with the overall premise at all (we have a great front office, they don't have to "prove" it by doing it with a different logo on their shirts), but it's definitely significant that one of the main things that made them successful at drafting is no longer allowed.

[Tracer Bullet]

Sure. But really smart people tend to be able to adapt. If Theo, Hoyer, etc, were only good at building a team in 1 way and that's no longer allowed, then we're screwed. I don't think that's the case.

[Guest]

Sure. But really smart people tend to be able to adapt. If Theo, Hoyer, etc, were only good at building a team in 1 way and that's no longer allowed, then we're screwed. I don't think that's the case.

 

I agree, and I trust the hell out of them because they are extremely smart people and smart baseball people. But I'd be lying if I said I'm not a little bit skeptical regarding their drafting ability now that the overslots were taken away. I need to see them win the scouting competition now.

Edited March 28, 2012 by David

[jersey cubs fan]

their predecessors were utterly incompetent, they don't need to be the best in the business to improve the organization.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Was overslotting really a big factor in the Red Sox' success? I don't remember in that way, but I am tired and known to be frequently wrong.