Random Cubs Musings

[dcvalpo]

WHO OR WHAT DO YOU POSSIBLY THINK YOU'RE REPLYING TO.

 

Everyone around here is saying the Cubs are good.

[Banedon]

For all our "improved"play we are 2 games ahead of the Brewers and 5.5 ahead of the AAA Marlins, and behind the Mets.

 

That's weird...because we didn't trade any of our good players for future talent at the deadline...

 

Oh wait...

[neely crenshaw]

For all our "improved"play we are 2 games ahead of the Brewers and 5.5 ahead of the AAA Marlins, and behind the Mets.

 

That's weird...because we didn't trade any of our good players for future talent at the deadline...

 

Oh wait...

First, I just mentioned it simply because I was surprised they were that close, shocked we're behind the mets

 

Your statement would make sense if not for the fact that since Feldman was traded we are 14-14, since Garza was traded 6-7, and since Soriano(4-5). So unless you are talking about the big loss of Hairston and Marmol, we are actually playing at a better % since the starting to trade than our overall record. Other than that it's right on.

By the way we've won 2 of 3 Rusin starts for Garza. Villanueva is 1-5 replacing Feldman, but he's had one bad start. he's lost 1-0, 3-1,3-2 and 6-5 (where he gave up 4). So maybe we win an extra game or 2 with Feldman... but maybe none.

Then factor in the start of Lake in Soriano's place, and I am not sure where that big drop off from the trade is happening.

 

but carry on, don't let facts deter you..

[neely crenshaw]

For the record:

Random Cub Musings....

 

Random= (ran'dum) adj

1. Having no specific pattern...

 

I posted a random cub musing, it's kind of what the thread is about. No, it did not follow our bullpen posts, but in truth those actually belong someplace else, although they are random cub musings.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2013/02/2015-mlb-free-agents.html

 

Looking at the post-2014 free agents, and knowing Kershaw will get some insane extension, you may have to accept that good FA classes are a thing of the past.

[Guest]

http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2013/02/2015-mlb-free-agents.html

 

Looking at the post-2014 free agents, and knowing Kershaw will get some insane extension, you may have to accept that good FA classes are a thing of the past.

 

Until Harper takes his shot.

[Banedon]

For all our "improved"play we are 2 games ahead of the Brewers and 5.5 ahead of the AAA Marlins, and behind the Mets.

 

That's weird...because we didn't trade any of our good players for future talent at the deadline...

 

Oh wait...

First, I just mentioned it simply because I was surprised they were that close, shocked we're behind the mets

 

Your statement would make sense if not for the fact that since Feldman was traded we are 14-14, since Garza was traded 6-7, and since Soriano(4-5). So unless you are talking about the big loss of Hairston and Marmol, we are actually playing at a better % since the starting to trade than our overall record. Other than that it's right on.

By the way we've won 2 of 3 Rusin starts for Garza. Villanueva is 1-5 replacing Feldman, but he's had one bad start. he's lost 1-0, 3-1,3-2 and 6-5 (where he gave up 4). So maybe we win an extra game or 2 with Feldman... but maybe none.

Then factor in the start of Lake in Soriano's place, and I am not sure where that big drop off from the trade is happening.

 

but carry on, don't let facts deter you..

 

Hey, since we're talking about facts, how do you figure that the Cubs have gone 4-5 since the Soriano trade, when they've lost 7 of their last 8?

[davell]

Yeah, looking at the next two FA classes shows we really need to make trades or develop our own guys. In 2014, my guesses at the players who receive qualifying offers are McCann, Cano, Utley, Ellsbury, Choo, Beltran, and Pence for position players and Kuroda, Ervin Santana, Lincecum, and maybe Josh Johnson and Ubaldo Jimenez for pitchers. Very few of those are worth giving up a pick for, especially since quite a few of those guys make you feel uncomfortable giving a multi year deal too.

[Backtobanks]

Yeah, looking at the next two FA classes shows we really need to make trades or develop our own guys. In 2014, my guesses at the players who receive qualifying offers are McCann, Cano, Utley, Ellsbury, Choo, Beltran, and Pence for position players and Kuroda, Ervin Santana, Lincecum, and maybe Josh Johnson and Ubaldo Jimenez for pitchers. Very few of those are worth giving up a pick for, especially since quite a few of those guys make you feel uncomfortable giving a multi year deal too.

 

With the great improvement in the farm system, we had better hope that quite a few of them reach their expectation level. If 2 or 3 of our top 5 prospects don't pan out, we could be in serious trouble for quite awhile.

[KingCubsFan]

Yeah, looking at the next two FA classes shows we really need to make trades or develop our own guys. In 2014, my guesses at the players who receive qualifying offers are McCann, Cano, Utley, Ellsbury, Choo, Beltran, and Pence for position players and Kuroda, Ervin Santana, Lincecum, and maybe Josh Johnson and Ubaldo Jimenez for pitchers. Very few of those are worth giving up a pick for, especially since quite a few of those guys make you feel uncomfortable giving a multi year deal too.

 

With the great improvement in the farm system, we had better hope that quite a few of them reach their expectation level. If 2 or 3 of our top 5 prospects don't pan out, we could be in serious trouble for quite awhile.

It's almost a guarantee 2 or 3 won't pan out like we hoped. That's how prospects work.

[bukie]

Yeah, looking at the next two FA classes shows we really need to make trades or develop our own guys. In 2014, my guesses at the players who receive qualifying offers are McCann, Cano, Utley, Ellsbury, Choo, Beltran, and Pence for position players and Kuroda, Ervin Santana, Lincecum, and maybe Josh Johnson and Ubaldo Jimenez for pitchers. Very few of those are worth giving up a pick for, especially since quite a few of those guys make you feel uncomfortable giving a multi year deal too.

 

With the great improvement in the farm system, we had better hope that quite a few of them reach their expectation level. If 2 or 3 of our top 5 prospects don't pan out, we could be in serious trouble for quite awhile.

It's almost a guarantee 2 or 3 won't pan out like we hoped. That's how prospects work.

Which is why it's a good thing we're watching the development of 6-7 positional prospects instead of 1-2 as in years' past (Patterson, Pie, Cedeno). It's similar to the Cubs' RISP issues, it only seems more pronounced for the organization because they have given themselves fewer chances to hit than most other organizations.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Which is why it's a good thing we're watching the development of 6-7 positional prospects instead of 1-2 as in years' past (Patterson, Pie, Cedeno). It's similar to the Cubs' RISP issues, it only seems more pronounced for the organization because they have given themselves fewer chances to hit than most other organizations.

 

The Patterson-era minor league organization was not shallow, even on the position player end.

[Warpticon]

The point of having lots of top prospects is to reduce the effect of any particular prospect's failure. They're not in trouble if two or three don't become stars because that would mean two or three do become stars, which is well above average return.

[bukie]

Which is why it's a good thing we're watching the development of 6-7 positional prospects instead of 1-2 as in years' past (Patterson, Pie, Cedeno). It's similar to the Cubs' RISP issues, it only seems more pronounced for the organization because they have given themselves fewer chances to hit than most other organizations.

 

The Patterson-era minor league organization was not shallow, even on the position player end.

The Patterson era organization was all about developing pitching prospects and trading away hitting prospects, and players like Hinske, Harris, Hill and Choi were traded before they really got established as major leaguers. Patteron, Pie and Cedeno were really the only Cub position prospects to actually make it completely through the system as prospects and play for the major league team. Soto as well, now that I think of it.

[sneakypower]

It's almost a guarantee 2 or 3 won't pan out like we hoped. That's how prospects work.

Red Sox Top-100 Prospects

 

2008: Clay Buchholz, Jacoby Ellsbury, Lars Anderson, Justin Masterson, Jed Lowrie, Michael Bowden, Ryan Kalish

2007: Daisuke Matsuzaka, Jacoby Ellsbury, Clay Buchholz, Daniel Bard, Michael Bowden

2006: Jon Lester, Jonathan Papelbon, Craig Hansen, Dustin Pedroia

[KingCubsFan]

So in 2006, three of their top 6 panned out. In 2007, 3 of the top 6 panned out. And in 2008, 4 of the top 6 panned out (which is excellent). Not sure how much this refutes my point.

 

Also, good thing you conveniently ignored 2009:

 

1. Ryan Westmoreland

2. Casey Kelly

3. Josh Reddick

4. Lars Anderson

5. Ryan Kalish

 

Anthony Rizzo was #8, so I guess there's that.

[sneakypower]

So in 2006, three of their top 6 panned out. In 2007, 3 of the top 6 panned out. And in 2008, 4 of the top 6 panned out (which is excellent). Not sure how much this refutes my point.

 

Also, good thing you conveniently ignored 2009:

 

1. Ryan Westmoreland

2. Casey Kelly

3. Josh Reddick

4. Lars Anderson

5. Ryan Kalish

 

Anthony Rizzo was #8, so I guess there's that.

i ignored it because it wasn't an analogous situation, whatsoever; they had Anderson at #19 as the only top-80 guy

 

you have a ridiculous definition of "panned out" if an elite reliever, or top-5 CY finisher don't qualify

 

so sure, i agree with you- our top guys probably won't all be perennial all-stars; thanks for that revelation

[KingCubsFan]

So in 2006, three of their top 6 panned out. In 2007, 3 of the top 6 panned out. And in 2008, 4 of the top 6 panned out (which is excellent). Not sure how much this refutes my point.

 

Also, good thing you conveniently ignored 2009:

 

1. Ryan Westmoreland

2. Casey Kelly

3. Josh Reddick

4. Lars Anderson

5. Ryan Kalish

 

Anthony Rizzo was #8, so I guess there's that.

i ignored it because it wasn't an analogous situation, whatsoever; they had Anderson at #19 as the only top-80 guy

 

you have a ridiculous definition of "panned out" if an elite reliever, or top-5 CY finisher don't qualify

 

so sure, i agree with you- our top guys probably won't all be perennial all-stars; thanks for that revelation

I don't really consider Dice-K a true prospect, that's why I didn't count him. As for Bard, he was really good for 140 major league innings and then entirely imploded. I guess we should be considering Corey Patterson a smashing success by your standards.

[davell]

Personally, I think that last group of 5 points our FO in an even better light. Reddick has battled wrist problems this year, but I consider him fairly solid myself. The Pads are counting on Kelly for their rotation moving forward, Kalish hasn't stayed healthy enough to get a full read on yet, and Westmoreland had multiple BRAIN surgeries. The only one that has flamed out is Anderson, at this point. Its not like anyone should put blame on Westmoreland.

[bukie]

Also, prospects don't randomly flame out, most of the time. Regular failures in prospect development should point more towards organizational development failures, rather than the "luck of the draw".

 

The more I've heard about what the new management regime has implemented, the more I realize just how backwards and embarrassing the organization's development was before.

[Guest]

Also, prospects don't randomly flame out, most of the time. Regular failures in prospect development should point more towards organizational development failures, rather than the "luck of the draw".

 

The more I've heard about what the new management regime has implemented, the more I realize just how backwards and embarrassing the organization's development was before.

 

On the one hand, I tend to think it's much more about picking the right guys than it is about player development.

 

On the other, when you're as far on the extreme end of bad in that department, the fact that we've gone from that to very good player development is probably extreme enough that it's a factor (in terms of comparing our past track record with prospects).

[sneakypower]

As for Bard, he was really good for 140 major league innings and then entirely imploded. I guess we should be considering Corey Patterson a smashing success by your standards.

Patterson's career would have been considered a smashing success had he been a prospect who was never even top-80 on lists

 

Also, prospects don't randomly flame out, most of the time. Regular failures in prospect development should point more towards organizational development failures, rather than the "luck of the draw".

 

The more I've heard about what the new management regime has implemented, the more I realize just how backwards and embarrassing the organization's development was before.

yes, this is why we were so happy about the Theo hire, not because he was going to sign a fuckton of big-ticket FAs

[Hairyducked Idiot]

yes, this is why we were so happy about the Theo hire, not because he was going to sign a [expletive] of big-ticket FAs

 

I was excited about both.

[davell]

yes, this is why we were so happy about the Theo hire, not because he was going to sign a [expletive] of big-ticket FAs

 

I was excited about both.

I was excited about both as well. He's living up to his part of things, lets just hope Ricketts does as well.

[mul21]

Also, prospects don't randomly flame out, most of the time. Regular failures in prospect development should point more towards organizational development failures, rather than the "luck of the draw".

 

The more I've heard about what the new management regime has implemented, the more I realize just how backwards and embarrassing the organization's development was before.

 

On the one hand, I tend to think it's much more about picking the right guys than it is about player development.

 

On the other, when you're as far on the extreme end of bad in that department, the fact that we've gone from that to very good player development is probably extreme enough that it's a factor (in terms of comparing our past track record with prospects).

 

I don't know, the Cardinals development system seems to have produced a pretty good number of hitters who really weren't all that heralded when they picked them up. Obviously they have to have talent, but I think some organizations have a knack for bringing it out much better than others.