sometimes deck chairs need to be rearranged

[Transmogrified Tiger]

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.

 

My read is that anyone who wants to say 'the consequences of not doing enough player development at the end of this core's time together are too great to not pay for it with their job' is not wrong, and also that anyone who wants to say 'player development is really difficult to do and to measure, and the comprehensive hitting success makes it even possible to have a core to spoil so I'm willing to stick with McLeod' is also not wrong.

[Tim]

Are we giving no credit to the Cubs for all the bullpen finds from 2019? They've taken guys that had (at best) iffy results elsewhere and developed them into solid contributors:

 

Rowan Wick

Kyle Ryan

Alec Mills

Brad Wieck

 

Not to mention that Underwood actually looks like he maybe perhaps could finally be a solid piece out there, as well. While the overall track record is pretty miserable, I do think it is fair to say that the results are improving.

[jersey cubs fan]

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, for all their nonsense, never pretended to prioritize 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 - it's a path to mediocrity and probably alot more catastrophic injuries

It's not a controversial choice. Emphasizing big bats early was the right decision. Pay for pitchers to cover the gap was the right choice. The third part of that though was the need to develop pitchers to plug into the system because you can't buy all the pitchers, and that is where they have failed miserably. Nobody thought they'd have a rotation full of their own prospects. But they needed to get a couple guys, if not 1 and a handful of relievers. They have none.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Are we giving no credit to the Cubs for all the bullpen finds from 2019? They've taken guys that had (at best) iffy results elsewhere and developed them into solid contributors:

 

Rowan Wick

Kyle Ryan

Alec Mills

Brad Wieck

 

Not to mention that Underwood actually looks like he maybe perhaps could finally be a solid piece out there, as well. While the overall track record is pretty miserable, I do think it is fair to say that the results are improving.

 

I think most folks can be encouraged by 2019 being better than 2017-18 in that regard, and also skeptical because 1) again, relievers are basically random number generators in their predictability so you can do well by accident to a certain level and 2) Mills and Wieck being on the list with a combined 19 relief appearances (26 IP) kinda makes the point that we're stretching for positives.

[jersey cubs fan]

Are we giving no credit to the Cubs for all the bullpen finds from 2019? They've taken guys that had (at best) iffy results elsewhere and developed them into solid contributors:

 

Rowan Wick

Kyle Ryan

Alec Mills

Brad Wieck

 

Not to mention that Underwood actually looks like he maybe perhaps could finally be a solid piece out there, as well. While the overall track record is pretty miserable, I do think it is fair to say that the results are improving.

taking other people's scraps and getting some quality innings out of them is not developing your own prospects.

[Tim]

Are we giving no credit to the Cubs for all the bullpen finds from 2019? They've taken guys that had (at best) iffy results elsewhere and developed them into solid contributors:

 

Rowan Wick

Kyle Ryan

Alec Mills

Brad Wieck

 

Not to mention that Underwood actually looks like he maybe perhaps could finally be a solid piece out there, as well. While the overall track record is pretty miserable, I do think it is fair to say that the results are improving.

taking other people's scraps and getting some quality innings out of them is not developing your own prospects.

Well, there were like 10-11 innings from Underwood, too. :D

[Cubswin11]

 

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.

Not developing pitching didn't lead to it, but how they went about building during that stretch very much left open the consequences of not developing pitching because they basically punted and neglected it. And it worked out, now we're dealing with some of the fallout.

 

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.

Not finding cheap bullpen arms is bad, that's a clear failure on their part. They should've had 2-3 guys emerge as reliable bullpen arms since 2016, but it's not some catastrophic failure. That's the easiest part of a team to build year over year (we also are shaping up to have a lot of homegrown guys emerge as pen options between this year and next, they are starting to do this). I'm just not going to overly fault them for failing to develop a SP, as TT pointed out the facts and circumstances show it's not all that probable to do it since 2016. Of course it would've been great to do but it wasn't an overly likely thing to happen so it's hard to hold that over their head too much, it sucks but the facts are the facts. Since 2016 other than the Dodgers who are teams that have won 90+ a year and drafted around us that have developed useful starting pitching? I just think your complaint, while somewhat justified, is also misguided in how big a miss/failure the SP development was given the facts and circumstances of how SP are drafted/developed. I'm not even trying to make excuses, changes clearly needed to be made because we do NEED to start to develop pitching and luckily they made them but I'm trying to look at it objectively as possible.

[Sammy Sofa]

Not developing pitching didn't lead to it, but how they went about building during that stretch very much left open the consequences of not developing pitching because they basically punted and neglected it. And it worked out, now we're dealing with some of the fallout.

 

hat they put their big draft picks' focus on hitting doesn't excuse or justify completely biffing every single opportunity to develop a pitcher via the draft or signing simply because they won the WS, because it's effectively acting like if they invested even just an iota more of whatever the horsefeathers in to developing some pitching then it all wouldn't have happened. The WS doesn't and shouldn't grant everyone working for the team immunity from accountability.

 

They should've had 2-3 guys emerge as reliable bullpen arms since 2016, but it's not some catastrophic failure.

 

It most definitely is when it leads to stupid money having to be spent on guys like Morrow and Kimbrel, or Chatwood since you can't even develop a single remotely serviceable backend starter.

[squally1313]

Could arguably throw Chapman into that last group too. Character issues aside, he played a big part of getting us the title. But maybe you don't have to pay a ransom for the top reliever on the market in order to contend at that level.

[Bertz]

 

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....

 

In net terms, the Cubs have had fantastic contributions from the farm the last 8 years. So yeah, the choice is basically would you have rather had McLeod or someone worse. Unless you think we could have stolen whoever ran drafts/IFAs for the Dodgers or one of the 2-3 teams who had a better run than us without it being a pure matter of draft position.

 

Overall, on the pitching, TT really hit the nail on the head that the lack of investment is the primary driver there. In the first 3-4 years of McLeod's tenure, they invested real assets into 6 guys: Duane Underwood, Paul Blackburn. Pierce Johnson, Dylan Cease, Justin Steele, and Carson Sands. Those were the guys who were either a day one pick or got paid like one. They hit on Cease, and between Underwood and Steele will probably net another 7th inning guy. Going 1.5/6 sucks, but it's not some affront to pitching development. On the later rounds, we should acknowledge Zack Godley as a success, but yes you'd also expect an additional Kyle Ryan type or three by now.

 

Canning McLeod because of two missing Kyle Ryans and not getting a mid-rotation starter out of the Underwood/Johnson/Blackburn trio is horsefeathering moronic. His track record with bats is INCREDIBLE, and dumping him because of some histrionic "where's the pitching" tantrum is the very definition of throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

 

And even if this argument wasn't dumb, the fact is that the problem has largely been resolved over the last 3-4 years. Ironically, the two high picks in 2017 look to be busts, but they've kind of been killing it in the middle and late rounds. The pitching in the system is very healthy, to the point that every level has 3-4 real prospects in the rotation and a few guys in each pen who you don't have to squint too hard to see as major leaguers. It's not the Padres or the Braves, but considering the assets expended to get there (as a playoff team we've been picking late in each round plus losing draft picks from FAs) it's not all that dissimilar.

[squally1313]

Sofa is going to do this better than me, but.

 

The net contributions have been great, and have been incredibly top heavy. We drafted hitters with top 10 overall picks 5 years in a row, and all of them have contributed to our success, to obviously varying degrees. You can debate how much credit Jason McLeod should get for developing Kris Bryant, college player of the year, or the one year Kyle Schwarber spent in the minors before he made it to the pros (or the year and a half for Ian Happ). I would argue not a lot, but that's easy to say because they turned into actual players. Javy? Sure, it's clear a ton of work took place to get him where he is now, but it's also worth pointing out that he showed up to the majors an an incredibly raw player, and didn't really make a leap until he had about 300 games in the majors.

 

Dylan Cease was the second piece in the Quintana deal, and was the 63rd ranked prospect in baseball when we traded him. Calling that a 'hit' is generous. As TT mentioned earlier, in hindsight it probably wasn't the best strategy to just pile up arms and play the odds you develop a few. But the fact remains that that was the direction we went in, and McLeod didn't deliver. A 63rd prospect and MAYBE a 7th inning guy in 4 years of drafting is not good.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

You can debate how much credit Jason McLeod should get for developing Kris Bryant, college player of the year, or the one year Kyle Schwarber spent in the minors before he made it to the pros (or the year and a half for Ian Happ). I would argue not a lot, but that's easy to say because they turned into actual players.

 

The bigger feather in the cap for Schwarber and Happ is that both were considered substantial reaches on draft day, and McLeod's job is as much to get guys who don't need as much work as it is to improve the players they're able to get.

[Sammy Sofa]

Sofa is going to do this better than me, but.

 

The net contributions have been great, and have been incredibly top heavy. We drafted hitters with top 10 overall picks 5 years in a row, and all of them have contributed to our success, to obviously varying degrees. You can debate how much credit Jason McLeod should get for developing Kris Bryant, college player of the year, or the one year Kyle Schwarber spent in the minors before he made it to the pros (or the year and a half for Ian Happ). I would argue not a lot, but that's easy to say because they turned into actual players. Javy? Sure, it's clear a ton of work took place to get him where he is now, but it's also worth pointing out that he showed up to the majors an an incredibly raw player, and didn't really make a leap until he had about 300 games in the majors.

 

Dylan Cease was the second piece in the Quintana deal, and was the 63rd ranked prospect in baseball when we traded him. Calling that a 'hit' is generous. As TT mentioned earlier, in hindsight it probably wasn't the best strategy to just pile up arms and play the odds you develop a few. But the fact remains that that was the direction we went in, and McLeod didn't deliver. A 63rd prospect and MAYBE a 7th inning guy in 4 years of drafting is not good.

 

Nah, you nailed it pretty well. I really can't imagine someone so passionately going to bat for Jason horsefeathering McLeod, but here we are. This FO does weird things to people, man.

[Sammy Sofa]

Also: hoisting up Ian Happ like he's this amazing slam dunk argument in favor of McLeod being granted perpetual farm system Grand Poobah status is certainly something.

 

And, horsefeathers, let's face it, Schwarber, too.

 

[Tim]

I don't think the strategy to just pile up arms in rounds 2-10 is a bad one. I think the incredibly conservative profile they used to do it for the first x years was the bigger issue.

[Cubswin11]

Also: hoisting up Ian Happ like he's this amazing slam dunk argument in favor of McLeod being granted perpetual farm system Grand Poobah status is certainly something.

 

And, horsefeathers, let's face it, Schwarber, too.

 

They’ve combined for 13.9 WAR, one is 25 and one is 26 going in to this season. Man I think you gotta recheck your expectations on draft/prospect outcomes.

[squally1313]

You can debate how much credit Jason McLeod should get for developing Kris Bryant, college player of the year, or the one year Kyle Schwarber spent in the minors before he made it to the pros (or the year and a half for Ian Happ). I would argue not a lot, but that's easy to say because they turned into actual players.

 

The bigger feather in the cap for Schwarber and Happ is that both were considered substantial reaches on draft day, and McLeod's job is as much to get guys who don't need as much work as it is to improve the players they're able to get.

 

It's a little hard to track down 2015 draft predictions/pre-draft rankings, but FG had Happ going 11th instead of to us at 9. Another one had him at 17th. We may be getting into two separate discussions here. I assume based on this that McLeod was in charge of the draft as well as development, and so he gets credit for making those picks instead of, to use those previews, Daz Cameron or Jon Harris. But that still doesn't change the facts on his development skills, and if he gets credit for picking the right hitters those times, he gets marked down for all the pitchers he ended up on that didn't pan out.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

You can debate how much credit Jason McLeod should get for developing Kris Bryant, college player of the year, or the one year Kyle Schwarber spent in the minors before he made it to the pros (or the year and a half for Ian Happ). I would argue not a lot, but that's easy to say because they turned into actual players.

 

The bigger feather in the cap for Schwarber and Happ is that both were considered substantial reaches on draft day, and McLeod's job is as much to get guys who don't need as much work as it is to improve the players they're able to get.

 

It's a little hard to track down 2015 draft predictions/pre-draft rankings, but FG had Happ going 11th instead of to us at 9. Another one had him at 17th. We may be getting into two separate discussions here. I assume based on this that McLeod was in charge of the draft as well as development, and so he gets credit for making those picks instead of, to use those previews, Daz Cameron or Jon Harris. But that still doesn't change the facts on his development skills, and if he gets credit for picking the right hitters those times, he gets marked down for all the pitchers he ended up on that didn't pan out.

 

For sure, he owns the end outcome, so he doesn't get more or less credit for making a good pick that doesn't need much development time.

[Sammy Sofa]

Also: hoisting up Ian Happ like he's this amazing slam dunk argument in favor of McLeod being granted perpetual farm system Grand Poobah status is certainly something.

 

And, horsefeathers, let's face it, Schwarber, too.

 

They’ve combined for 13.9 WAR, one is 25 and one is 26 going in to this season. Man I think you gotta recheck your expectations on draft/prospect outcomes.

 

The idea that they should be feathers in his cap is hinged on the end of last year, and you know it. And it would be great if that turns out to be the case long term, but come on; Happ especially is based on the tiniest of sample sizes. Both of these guys are still question marks to varying degrees right now.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

The idea that they should be feathers in his cap is hinged on the end of last year, and you know it. And it would be great if that turns out to be the case long term, but come on; Happ especially is based on the tiniest of sample sizes. Both of these guys are still question marks to varying degrees right now.

 

Of the Top 10 picks in Happ's draft, 6 of them either haven't made MLB or have provided negative bWAR in a brief amount of time. 5 for Schwarber's Top 10. That's the baseline, not whether the player was an especially good major leaguer.

[squally1313]

The idea that they should be feathers in his cap is hinged on the end of last year, and you know it. And it would be great if that turns out to be the case long term, but come on; Happ especially is based on the tiniest of sample sizes. Both of these guys are still question marks to varying degrees right now.

 

Of the Top 10 picks in Happ's draft, 6 of them either haven't made MLB or have provided negative bWAR in a brief amount of time. 5 for Schwarber's Top 10. That's the baseline, not whether the player was an especially good major leaguer.

 

That's a little bit of an oversimplification, looking at Happ's draft. Yes, for where the Cubs were at the time it made sense to prioritize a more polished bat. But in those 6 you have Brendan Rogers and Kyle Tucker, both of which are much more valuable than Ian Happ.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

But in those 6 you have Brendan Rogers and Kyle Tucker, both of which are much more valuable than Ian Happ.

 

Agree to disagree, demonstrating you can make the leap to producing at the MLB level is the biggest jump, so even if they have higher ceilings(especially debatable for Tucker), I'm not going to simply assume they're on track to produce more.

[Sammy Sofa]

The idea that they should be feathers in his cap is hinged on the end of last year, and you know it. And it would be great if that turns out to be the case long term, but come on; Happ especially is based on the tiniest of sample sizes. Both of these guys are still question marks to varying degrees right now.

 

Of the Top 10 picks in Happ's draft, 6 of them either haven't made MLB or have provided negative bWAR in a brief amount of time. 5 for Schwarber's Top 10. That's the baseline, not whether the player was an especially good major leaguer.

 

That's a little bit of an oversimplification, looking at Happ's draft. Yes, for where the Cubs were at the time it made sense to prioritize a more polished bat. But in those 6 you have Brendan Rogers and Kyle Tucker, both of which are much more valuable than Ian Happ.

 

Happ and Schwarber are valuable players; I take issue with them being tossed out like they're proof that it's ludicrous to expect this FO to have someone running the farm who could, apparently inexplicably, both have an eye for offensive talent and could just barely competently handle the pitching development side of things. Like, "how dare you want to see someone other than the mastermind that found Schwarber and Ian Happ" is a tad much.

[Cubswin11]

 

Of the Top 10 picks in Happ's draft, 6 of them either haven't made MLB or have provided negative bWAR in a brief amount of time. 5 for Schwarber's Top 10. That's the baseline, not whether the player was an especially good major leaguer.

 

That's a little bit of an oversimplification, looking at Happ's draft. Yes, for where the Cubs were at the time it made sense to prioritize a more polished bat. But in those 6 you have Brendan Rogers and Kyle Tucker, both of which are much more valuable than Ian Happ.

 

Happ and Schwarber are valuable players; I take issue with them being tossed out like they're proof that it's ludicrous to expect this FO to have someone running the farm who could, apparently inexplicably, both have an eye for offensive talent and could just barely competently handle the pitching development side of things. Like, "how dare you want to see someone other than the mastermind that found Schwarber and Ian Happ" is a tad much.

I mean everyone who’s on the other side of this has admitted they’ve lacked at the pitching side but also explained how their failings were also the more probable outcome when trying to develop pitching (especially SPs). The Happ/Schwarber stuff is just proving they are good at what they are good at and they picked a plan to go and were relatively successful with it. You can’t name names who would’ve been better outcomes than them if we picked different dudes over them. Ultimately I think the stance of some of us that your whole issue with or expedition of the FO is rather unrealistic when looking at the circumstances and around the league. When there’s a whopping 1 team (Dodgers) who you could say are actually pulling off what you want the FO to do.

 

 

I’m 100% on board with you that what you want is how things should be run and should be the goal of every team to work that way. I just think in reality it’s not how things actually run and turn out the vast majority of the time given so many variables.

Edited November 14, 2019 by Cubswin11

[Cubswin11]

But in those 6 you have Brendan Rogers and Kyle Tucker, both of which are much more valuable than Ian Happ.

 

Agree to disagree, demonstrating you can make the leap to producing at the MLB level is the biggest jump, so even if they have higher ceilings(especially debatable for Tucker), I'm not going to simply assume they're on track to produce more.

Rodgers and Tucker were in AA and AAA and just barely getting a cup of coffee in MLB at the same age Happ was playing regularly, putting up positive WAR and helping us win the division. Today as trade chips sure Rodgers and Tucker are worth more, the shine certainly seems off of Tucker a bit though and to date Happ’s the only guys who’s actually contributed value in MLB. We also couldn’t have taken them over Happ anyways, as they went sooner.