sometimes deck chairs need to be rearranged

[jersey cubs fan]

Guys, stop; the only real argument in his favor is that he looks kind of like a bro-y version of Sal from Mad Men.

He too can finish his career in Baltimore

[CaliforniaRaisin]

McLeod's still the defacto #3, that new title's fancy. I wouldn't be surprised if his promotion was Harris' cue that the Cubs see McLeod as a GM or higher candidate post-Theo

 

Based on what happened this offseason and everything that's available on Scott Harris, he had clearly jumped ahead of McLeod in this regime's view.

[jersey cubs fan]

I'm not really willing to die on the Jason McLeod hill because I don't know these people *BUT* I don't find it coincidence that the guy without a baseball as srs bizness background, fancy/expensive degrees, and probably the least amount of family money among the top of the FO is the first to lose the fanbase. Love the choices sports fans make on who gets support and who gets trashed based on the tiniest bits of info

 

What the hell are you on about now you weirdo?

 

First off, the fan base doesn't even know who McCleod is. Next, the people that know Hoyer think of him as a punch line, and finally, a lot of people are getting fed up with Theo.

 

The Cubs hit on some early draft picks that were bats, but the minor league system completely dried up for a few years and has produced nothing. The guy in charge of that is going to take heat in any organization. Nobody gives a crap about his freaking dad's net worth.

[David]

I'm not really willing to die on the Jason McLeod hill because I don't know these people *BUT* I don't find it coincidence that the guy without a baseball as srs bizness background, fancy/expensive degrees, and probably the least amount of family money among the top of the FO is the first to lose the fanbase. Love the choices sports fans make on who gets support and who gets trashed based on the tiniest bits of info

 

IIRC the first thing Epstein ever said about Scott Harris when he hired was something about how he really knew the administrative stuff and MLB rulebook

 

nobody thinks jed hoyer is anything but a guy who sits in on introductory press conferences and talks to the media about lesser free agent signings so theo doesn't have to

[Thed Hoyerstein]

What the hell are you on about now you weirdo?

 

Everything's a conspiracy that goes back to the They that run the world, especially pro sports which is basically a less violent but equally and increasingly elitist form of organized religion. Bet you don't think I'm a weirdo now that I've fully explained myself while staying on topic

 

[Sammy Sofa]

Guys, stop; the only real argument in his favor is that he looks kind of like a bro-y version of Sal from Mad Men.

 

I always thought he looked like a clean cut Pat Smear.

 

This lead me to find this:

 

http://www.feelnumb.com/2019/02/20/pat-smear-foo-fighters-in-prince-raspberry-beret-music-video/

 

It has long been rumored that Pat Smear, the legendary punk rock guitarist from the bands The Germs, Nirvana & Foo Fighters was an extra in the 1985 Prince “Raspberry Beret” music video.

 

After I finally had a chance to speak to Smear backstage at a gig about the rumor, he 100% confirmed to me that he was indeed in the video and shared some stories with me about how it all happened.

 

http://www.feelnumb.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/pat-smear-prince-raspberry-beret-video-germs-foo-fighters-1985.jpg

 

http://www.feelnumb.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/pat-smear-foo-fighters-nirvana-germs-prince-raspberry-beret-video.jpg

[Sammy Sofa]

I'm okay with them making the change with McLeod, it's probably time, but the animosity towards him is real weird, and I've yet to hear anything intelligible behind it.

It's always "BUT WHERE'S THE PITCHING" while ignoring a) the vast majority of resources were poured into bats b) McLeod's track record with bats is incredible and c) the pitching ship seems to have mostly been righted in ~2016 and we're beginning to see the results.

 

I guess that's the FO business mantra: something has gotta be god awful for years before it can be good. THERE IS NO OTHER WAY.

 

Seriously, it cannot be understated how catastrophically bad they botched developing pitchers (literally ANY pitcher) for years.

[Sammy Sofa]

What the hell are you on about now you weirdo?

 

Everything's a conspiracy that goes back to the They that run the world, especially pro sports which is basically a less violent but equally and increasingly elitist form of organized religion. Bet you don't think I'm a weirdo now that I've fully explained myself while staying on topic

 

I had no idea that Tom was actually Cubbie Swagger this entire time.

[Bertz]

I'm okay with them making the change with McLeod, it's probably time, but the animosity towards him is real weird, and I've yet to hear anything intelligible behind it.

It's always "BUT WHERE'S THE PITCHING" while ignoring a) the vast majority of resources were poured into bats b) McLeod's track record with bats is incredible and c) the pitching ship seems to have mostly been righted in ~2016 and we're beginning to see the results.

 

I guess that's the FO business mantra: something has gotta be god awful for years before it can be good. THERE IS NO OTHER WAY.

 

Seriously, it cannot be understated how catastrophically bad they botched developing pitchers (literally ANY pitcher) for years.

 

Let's say you're right (you're not, you're grossly exaggerating things, but w/e), is that worth catapulting him out of town? Would you really rather have had a worse farm director if they had a better balance between hitting and pitching? Or is this some sort of "we should be the best at everything dammit" temper tantrum?

[Sammy Sofa]

I'm okay with them making the change with McLeod, it's probably time, but the animosity towards him is real weird, and I've yet to hear anything intelligible behind it.

It's always "BUT WHERE'S THE PITCHING" while ignoring a) the vast majority of resources were poured into bats b) McLeod's track record with bats is incredible and c) the pitching ship seems to have mostly been righted in ~2016 and we're beginning to see the results.

 

I guess that's the FO business mantra: something has gotta be god awful for years before it can be good. THERE IS NO OTHER WAY.

 

Seriously, it cannot be understated how catastrophically bad they botched developing pitchers (literally ANY pitcher) for years.

 

Let's say you're right (you're not, you're grossly exaggerating things, but w/e), is that worth catapulting him out of town?

 

Yes. Not developing a single pitcher of any real worth is really, really bad, and a massively critical aspect of running a damn farm system. To shrug that off like it's NBD is pretty damn funny, and to say, right now, that the "pitching ship has been mostly righted" is even funnier.

 

Would you really rather have had a worse farm director if they had a better balance between hitting and pitching? Or is this some sort of "we should be the best at everything dammit" temper tantrum?

 

So the options were only McLeod or someone worse? Well, gee, when you put it like that....

[Cubswin11]

I’d like to see the number of pitchers every team has developed since 2016 or so (drafted since 2015/16 and made it to majors) and see how we stack up. Are we 3 or so pitchers short? Closer to 10? More? Also would like to put some limits on it, like guys had to pitch at least 30 innings or accumulate positive WAR. Would also like to compare to teams who never picked higher than 15 or so too since we were always in the 20s or didn’t have a pick.

 

We have been bad at it, no doubt. But I do wonder if this is one of the things a lot of teams fans complain about and think it’s solely their problem when everyone else is within range of each other on it?

[Sammy Sofa]

Hell, I'd settle for the Cubs having developed someone more notable than CJ horsefeathering Edwards. Someone please tell me I'm blanking on someone else really, really, stupidly obvious.

[Cubswin11]

Hell, I'd settle for the Cubs having developed someone more notable than CJ horsefeathering Edwards. Someone please tell me I'm blanking on someone else really, really, stupidly obvious.

Do you count Hendricks, Strop or Jake at all? I would get the argument either way. Sure they weren’t drafted, but they either were prospects when acquired and “developed” or sucked at the major league level and fixed/“developed.”

[Sammy Sofa]

Hell, I'd settle for the Cubs having developed someone more notable than CJ horsefeathering Edwards. Someone please tell me I'm blanking on someone else really, really, stupidly obvious.

Do you count Hendricks, Strop or Jake at all? I would get the argument either way. Sure they weren’t drafted, but they either were prospects when acquired and “developed” or sucked at the major league level and fixed/“developed.”

 

Hendricks is exactly the kind of person I was thinking of, thanks; I would definitely count him. Strop and Jake basically just got plugged in right away, so no, I wouldn't count them in terms of evaluating McLeod.

 

I just look at some of the defense of him as still this ongoing residual of the horsefeathers don't stink-takes on the FO that still perpetuate, like he's practically this scared cow, where the idea of moving on from him is absurd.

Edited November 14, 2019 by Sammy Sofa

[Transmogrified Tiger]

As far as relievers go, I think they've been a bit below average for multiple reasons, but they should've been able to avoid needing so many deals with the Kintzlers, Brachs, and Duensings of the world with better development.

 

Starters are a little different animal. If you look at the last few years, the correlation between starters who are above average, and especially those who are consistently above average, is really closely correlated to being a high draft pick and/or a high bonus arm. There's a shockingly low number of good IFA SP, and the diamonds in the draft rough are few and far in between. When you combine that with the Cubs intentionally not sinking money into draft SP until very recently, they intentionally didn't give themselves much chance to develop SP, but those with the ability they did a solid job with(Hendricks, Cease, and Godley being notable success stories, if not all with the MLB Cubs). I'm not willing to say they're *good* at it given that there isn't a legion of Top 100 arms hitting AA now that it's been long enough since they started investing, but there's enough circumstance to not see it as a failure of player development.

[Banedon]

[tweet]

[/tweet]

[Sammy Sofa]

Starters are a little different animal. If you look at the last few years, the correlation between starters who are above average, and especially those who are consistently above average, is really closely correlated to being a high draft pick and/or a high bonus arm. There's a shockingly low number of good IFA SP, and the diamonds in the draft rough are few and far in between. When you combine that with the Cubs intentionally not sinking money into draft SP until very recently, they intentionally didn't give themselves much chance to develop SP

 

So are we saying this is a development that took them surprise? Like, we effectively have to be, because otherwise for them to act as they did is almost shockingly negligent. It also effectively means that we have to assume that the relative financial constraint from the Ricketts also took them by surprise, because otherwise for Theo Epstein, with his at least somewhat shaky track record of acquiring pitchers via signing and trade, to be plowing ahead with a "horsefeathers PITCHERS" approach in regards to player development while knowing all of that is....not good.

[Regular Show]

[tweet]

[/tweet]

 

Umm, wrong thread?

 

Shouldn't that be in here:

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=3195

[Cubswin11]

Starters are a little different animal. If you look at the last few years, the correlation between starters who are above average, and especially those who are consistently above average, is really closely correlated to being a high draft pick and/or a high bonus arm. There's a shockingly low number of good IFA SP, and the diamonds in the draft rough are few and far in between. When you combine that with the Cubs intentionally not sinking money into draft SP until very recently, they intentionally didn't give themselves much chance to develop SP

 

So are we saying this is a development that took them surprise? Like, we effectively have to be, because otherwise for them to act as they did is almost shockingly negligent. It also effectively means that we have to assume that the relative financial constraint from the Ricketts also took them by surprise, because otherwise for Theo Epstein, with his at least somewhat shaky track record of acquiring pitchers via signing and trade, to be plowing ahead with a "horsefeathers PITCHERS" approach in regards to player development while knowing all of that is....not good.

Except for the time it lead to 4+ 90 win years and a World Series, that was good.

 

Also TT is more than capable of answering for himself but I think all he’s trying to say is that it’s an issue a lot of teams face when they aren’t picking high with developing SPs. They weren’t surprised by anything, if anything they were very aware of it and it’s why they stayed away from pitching early on and took bats.

Edited November 14, 2019 by Cubswin11

[squally1313]

As far as relievers go, I think they've been a bit below average for multiple reasons, but they should've been able to avoid needing so many deals with the Kintzlers, Brachs, and Duensings of the world with better development.

 

Starters are a little different animal. If you look at the last few years, the correlation between starters who are above average, and especially those who are consistently above average, is really closely correlated to being a high draft pick and/or a high bonus arm. There's a shockingly low number of good IFA SP, and the diamonds in the draft rough are few and far in between. When you combine that with the Cubs intentionally not sinking money into draft SP until very recently, they intentionally didn't give themselves much chance to develop SP, but those with the ability they did a solid job with(Hendricks, Cease, and Godley being notable success stories, if not all with the MLB Cubs). I'm not willing to say they're *good* at it given that there isn't a legion of Top 100 arms hitting AA now that it's been long enough since they started investing, but there's enough circumstance to not see it as a failure of player development.

 

Given that their draft strategy seemed to be that you should draft the best hitter first, and then just stockpile arms and hope you get a few good ones...is that a criticism of Theo in terms of their approach, given what you're saying about reliable starters being top picks?

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Starters are a little different animal. If you look at the last few years, the correlation between starters who are above average, and especially those who are consistently above average, is really closely correlated to being a high draft pick and/or a high bonus arm. There's a shockingly low number of good IFA SP, and the diamonds in the draft rough are few and far in between. When you combine that with the Cubs intentionally not sinking money into draft SP until very recently, they intentionally didn't give themselves much chance to develop SP

 

So are we saying this is a development that took them surprise? Like, we effectively have to be, because otherwise for them to act as they did is almost shockingly negligent. It also effectively means that we have to assume that the relative financial constraint from the Ricketts also took them by surprise, because otherwise for Theo Epstein, with his at least somewhat shaky track record of acquiring pitchers via signing and trade, to be plowing ahead with a "horsefeathers PITCHERS" approach in regards to player development while knowing all of that is....not good.

 

I think they were pretty clear-eyed about that being the consequence of the strategy. To oversimplify, draft the hitters, pay for the pitchers while the hitters are cheap. They're hitting a crossroads now where the hitters are less cheap(and we've had 1-2 years of stalled development/regression) and the pitchers they started investing in aren't ready or are a bit behind an aggressive timeline.

 

The missing piece in this is that the best teams have bridged this gap by getting better at developing talent already at the MLB level. The Cubs have done their share of this(Arrieta and Strop being the obvious answer, but guys like Valbuena, Coghlan, Hammel, even Fowler to an extent too), but they've recognized their failure in that regard with the organizational changes in the last 12 months.

[Sammy Sofa]

Starters are a little different animal. If you look at the last few years, the correlation between starters who are above average, and especially those who are consistently above average, is really closely correlated to being a high draft pick and/or a high bonus arm. There's a shockingly low number of good IFA SP, and the diamonds in the draft rough are few and far in between. When you combine that with the Cubs intentionally not sinking money into draft SP until very recently, they intentionally didn't give themselves much chance to develop SP

 

So are we saying this is a development that took them surprise? Like, we effectively have to be, because otherwise for them to act as they did is almost shockingly negligent. It also effectively means that we have to assume that the relative financial constraint from the Ricketts also took them by surprise, because otherwise for Theo Epstein, with his at least somewhat shaky track record of acquiring pitchers via signing and trade, to be plowing ahead with a "horsefeathers PITCHERS" approach in regards to player development while knowing all of that is....not good.

Except for the time it lead to 4+ 90 win years and a World Series, that was good.

 

Dude, come on. That's the baseball equivalent of "A WIZARD DID IT;" the Cubs being terrible at developing pitching for a significant stretch didn't "lead" to them doing all of that.

 

Also TT is more than capable of answering for himself but I think all he’s trying to say is that it’s an issue a lot of teams face when they aren’t picking high with developing SPs. They weren’t surprised by anything, if anything they were very aware of it and it’s why they stayed away from pitching early on and took bats.

 

But "not using high draft picks on pitchers means you're less likely to develop good pitchers" is just d'uh common sense. What people (rightly, IMO) take issue with is that in addition to making that choice, the Cubs then failed to develop even a single relief pitcher outside of Edwards via any prospects they drafted or signed. That's horrendously bad. And to try and spin that off via, "well, they won the WS while that was going on, plus other teams don't really develop THAT many pitchers," as a defense of McLeod is pretty weak, IMO. I really take issue with the idea that he's some essential asset where the idea of the Cubs kicking him to the curb is a ridiculous idea. The Cubs completely dropped the ball on developing pitchers via the farm under his watch.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Also TT is more than capable of answering for himself but I think all he’s trying to say is that it’s an issue a lot of teams face when they aren’t picking high with developing SPs. They weren’t surprised by anything, if anything they were very aware of it and it’s why they stayed away from pitching early on and took bats.

 

But "not using high draft picks on pitchers means you're less likely to develop good pitchers" is just d'uh common sense. What people (rightly, IMO) take issue with is that in addition to making that choice, the Cubs then failed to develop even a single relief pitcher outside of Edwards via any prospects they drafted or signed. That's horrendously bad. And to try and spin that off via, "well, they won the WS while that was going on, plus other teams don't really develop THAT many pitchers," as a defense of McLeod is pretty weak, IMO. I really take issue with the idea that he's some essential asset where the idea of the Cubs kicking him to the curb is a ridiculous idea.

 

I think this is where the starter/reliever distinction is important. They should've done better at being able to fill a bullpen from within, there's no excuse for it. It's also probably the best possible place on a roster to fail, because every reliever is a game of russian roulette from year to year and so things go unexpectedly well or terribly all the time. The SP I think they did okay given the circumstances they chose. I don't have particular attachment to McLeod personally, but I also think the 'if he's good then where are the pitchers?' is a bit too simplistic a criticism.

[Sammy Sofa]

Also TT is more than capable of answering for himself but I think all he’s trying to say is that it’s an issue a lot of teams face when they aren’t picking high with developing SPs. They weren’t surprised by anything, if anything they were very aware of it and it’s why they stayed away from pitching early on and took bats.

 

But "not using high draft picks on pitchers means you're less likely to develop good pitchers" is just d'uh common sense. What people (rightly, IMO) take issue with is that in addition to making that choice, the Cubs then failed to develop even a single relief pitcher outside of Edwards via any prospects they drafted or signed. That's horrendously bad. And to try and spin that off via, "well, they won the WS while that was going on, plus other teams don't really develop THAT many pitchers," as a defense of McLeod is pretty weak, IMO. I really take issue with the idea that he's some essential asset where the idea of the Cubs kicking him to the curb is a ridiculous idea.

 

I think this is where the starter/reliever distinction is important. They should've done better at being able to fill a bullpen from within, there's no excuse for it. It's also probably the best possible place on a roster to fail, because every reliever is a game of russian roulette from year to year and so things go unexpectedly well or terribly all the time. The SP I think they did okay given the circumstances they chose. I don't have particular attachment to McLeod personally, but I also think the 'if he's good then where are the pitchers?' is a bit too simplistic a criticism.

 

It's too critical an area given Theo's overall pitching track record and the financial restraints they have and the age/injury risk of their starting rotation. Yes, I agree he's not THAT BAD, but based on how everything has played out, I'd rather have someone with a better Pitcher Whisperer-type rep running things to ideally fast track things as much as is realistically possible to mitigate things.

 

I think we would all prefer that they don't effectively botch the last two windows of this obviously very successful offensive push because they're not able to pick up the pitching end of things enough. I don't think McLeod brings anything irreplaceable to the table, and, yeah, maybe it's meathead of me to want to see some damn accountability for how the pitching side of things has gone.

[Sammy Sofa]

I think they were pretty clear-eyed about that being the consequence of the strategy. To oversimplify, draft the hitters, pay for the pitchers while the hitters are cheap. They're hitting a crossroads now where the hitters are less cheap(and we've had 1-2 years of stalled development/regression) and the pitchers they started investing in aren't ready or are a bit behind an aggressive timeline.

 

The missing piece in this is that the best teams have bridged this gap by getting better at developing talent already at the MLB level. The Cubs have done their share of this(Arrieta and Strop being the obvious answer, but guys like Valbuena, Coghlan, Hammel, even Fowler to an extent too), but they've recognized their failure in that regard with the organizational changes in the last 12 months.

 

I agree with this whole post but bolded this because it's important. The Cubs never pretended they prioritized developing a homegrown pitching staff over a lineup. Not even sure why this is even a controversial choice today - we saw what other way around looked like already with the 2000s Cubs and the middle of the decade Mets

 

Nobody was realistically expecting or wanting them to try and develop a homegrown pitching staff. Like, even just 3-4 guys between the starting rotation and the bullpen would have been perfectly fine.