Minor League Discussion & Boxes, 4-9-17

[We Got The Whole 9]

Forever against trading good young bats for the myth that is "young pitching."

Me too but they are really piling up with minimal open space for them to play. They're gonna have to move some of them but I think the mythical 5-1 deal is very unlikely to ever happen with this FO. I think it'll be more like 2-1 deals for reclamation projects or slightly faded prospects.

[CubsWin]

Forever against trading good young bats for the myth that is "young pitching."

I get the argument, but good young pitching exists. It's not a myth.

[CubsWin]

Forever against trading good young bats for the myth that is "young pitching."

Me too but they are really piling up with minimal open space for them to play. They're gonna have to move some of them but I think the mythical 5-1 deal is very unlikely to ever happen with this FO. I think it'll be more like 2-1 deals for reclamation projects or slightly faded prospects.

If Happ and others are involved it would have to be for something more than a reclamation project of sorts. I have no idea what's going to happen with Happ. Lots of different options. Injuries. Others getting traded. But a package for a quality arm with some upside is certainly one of the possibilities.

[Cubswin11]

Forever against trading good young bats for the myth that is "young pitching."

I get the argument, but good young pitching exists.

So do winning Powerball tickets

[CubsWin]

Forever against trading good young bats for the myth that is "young pitching."

I get the argument, but good young pitching exists.

So do winning Powerball tickets

Yes they do. But the odds of acquiring or developing a good pitcher 26 or younger are significantly better. But I suspect you know that.

[CaliforniaRaisin]

De La Cruz went 5 5 0 0 2 5. Its going to be fun watching us move back to an elite system this year, with what's already on the roster.

It certainly has been a good start for the top Cubs minor league pitchers. Butler (even thought he won't count towards the system's ranking is still important), Clifton, De La Cruz, Hatch and Cease combined for 24.2 IP, 17 H, 4 R, 3 ER, 11 BB, 25 K for a 1.09 ERA and a 1.14 WHIP.

 

Lesser prospects Zastryzny, P. Johnson, Tseng, Alzolay, T. Miller and Rondon threw 24.1 IP, 15 H, 5 R, 5 ER, 6 BB, 32 K for a 1.85 ERA and a 0.86 WHIP.

 

Add in bats like Jimenez, Happ, Candelario, Caratini with some emerging bats like EJM, Parades, etc., Albertos once short season gets started and the 27th and 30th draft picks and this system could be pretty solid by year's end. It will be fun to track for sure.

 

I can't imagine it's a popular thought around here but I kind of also like Morrison as well. He doesn't have the stuff or pedigree to stir prospect love but he does maintain excellent KBB, GB, and suppresses HR. He seems to miss a lot of barrels and could possibly thrive with our defense IMO. I'm not saying he will be as successful as Hendricks but I think there's a MLB pitcher there.

 

Anyway, he also had a good start for the Smokies as well.

 

I personally really like the pitching crop we have.

 

Morrison's got the look of a guy who will have a fruitful 10-year career as a reliever.

[David]

Forever against trading good young bats for the myth that is "young pitching."

I get the argument, but good young pitching exists. It's not a myth.

 

It's a myth because the youth doesn't do much of anything for you. There is nothing even resembling a semblance of certainty that you're getting any long term value out of them even when they pan out. I feel just as comfortable that a good 30 year old pitcher will give me a good 2-3 years as I would a good 24 year old (and little to nothing as far as certainty goes beyond that).

[CubsWin]

Forever against trading good young bats for the myth that is "young pitching."

I get the argument, but good young pitching exists. It's not a myth.

 

It's a myth because the youth doesn't do much of anything for you. There is nothing even resembling a semblance of certainty that you're getting any long term value out of them even when they pan out. I feel just as comfortable that a good 30 year old pitcher will give me a good 2-3 years as I would a good 24 year old (and little to nothing as far as certainty goes beyond that).

It's not youth for youth's sake. It's the ability to get a pitcher just entering his prime (or thereabouts) who is still on the upswing and has multiple years of control left at a decent monetary cost. I agree, youth by itself doesn't do much of anything. As I said, I get the argument. I understand the risks, and I like the way the Cubs have gone about obtaining their pitching thus far. Letting other teams take on most of the risk as the pitcher is coming up through the minors and getting established in the bigs is smart.

 

The problem is in order to get those 2-3 years out of a really good 30 year old pitcher you have to pay top dollar for 6-7 years. The risk exists on both sides of the equation whether it be in declining performance and health as the pitcher ages or in not fully developed potential and health with a younger starter. You're risking money on the one hand and prospect talent on the other.

 

Assuming your team has a need, at some point, the question becomes a matter of which resource can you afford to deplete. The Cubs will have a good amount of money to spend this off-season, but how long-term the contract can be is another concern. Reportedly, the Cubs have offered and are comfortable with giving Arrieta big money over 4 years. But he wants 6 or 7. With Bryant, Russell and Hendricks hitting arbitration in 2018 and Schwarber & Baez in 2019, the Cubs are rightfully concerned about handing out another 6-7 year contract of 20-25 million or more.

 

They're ways to minimize that risk on both ends of spectrum. I trust the Cubs FO to be able to identify the pitchers (be they 30 year old FAs or 24-26 year olds with 3 or more years of team control left) who have the least amount of risk to their profile. I believe they did this with Lester and somewhat with Montgomery. Lester's success comes more from location than over-powering velocity so his performance is less likely to fall off. Plus, he's remarkably consistent and physically stout. Montgomery had turned 27 on July 1st (20 days prior to the Cubs trading for him), was showing signs of putting it all together and had 5 years of control left.

 

There was risk to signing Lester to that contract, but it was minimized by not only the factors I listed above but also the fact that they didn't have a contract of that size already on their books. There's risk to Montgomery. He might not ever be a rotation mainstay, but he came with many years of control and they only had to give up Vogelbach and Blackburn to get him. If they can identify Montgomery, who's to say they can't do it with someone a year or two younger and a slightly higher upside?

 

Whether they do it again with a 30-year-old FA or a 24-26 year trade acquisition, good young pitching exists. It's not a myth (though I understand what you're saying). And I don't see a smart front office throwing out a large percentage of the acquirable talent pool just because they're beginning or are in their prime (26 or younger).