Bruce Miles on McPhail

[BleedCubbieBlue81]

What I cant' figure out is why the 2003 Cubs got motivated under Baker, but the 2005 didn't. Where did it all go wrong?

 

Better starting pitching? I don't have any numbers, but I don't think the 2003 offense was any better than this year's offense.

 

The 2003 team came in as underdogs. There was no pressure on them to win, so they played like there was no pressure. Then last year, some had them pegged as World Series champs. They collapsed under the pressure. And now with the raised expectations throughout the city, some of that pressure remains. Amazingly, only 3 people are still here from that 2003 team: Kerry Wood, Mark Prior, and Aramis Ramirez

 

EDIT: 3 people from the PLAYOFF team. CPatt was out for most of that season.

[Chris]

4. Pray Pie can handle CF at the major-league level.

 

No, please don't do this.

 

Join. Please don't rush him.

 

How good is Greenburg? maybe he can handle CF for a year?

 

His OBP is 1.000 for his career!

 

Greenberg is scheduled to rejoin the Jaxx today I believe. He has apparently been ruled 100%, but shouldn't be surprised if he has dizzy spells.

[rocket]

What I cant' figure out is why the 2003 Cubs got motivated under Baker, but the 2005 didn't. Where did it all go wrong?

 

Better starting pitching? I don't have any numbers, but I don't think the 2003 offense was any better than this year's offense.

 

The 2003 team came in as underdogs. There was no pressure on them to win, so they played like there was no pressure. Then last year, some had them pegged as World Series champs. They collapsed under the pressure. And now with the raised expectations throughout the city, some of that pressure remains. Amazingly, only 3 people are still here from that 2003 team: Kerry Wood, Mark Prior, and Aramis Ramirez

 

EDIT: 3 people from the PLAYOFF team. CPatt was out for most of that season.

 

Thanks for making Carlos Zambrano cry.

[dalgreen]

What I cant' figure out is why the 2003 Cubs got motivated under Baker, but the 2005 didn't. Where did it all go wrong?

 

Better starting pitching? I don't have any numbers, but I don't think the 2003 offense was any better than this year's offense.

 

Good point about the pitching. I believe Prior, Wood and Z were dominating in August and September. We also had a pretty effective bullpen, too. I still don't think you can win by having a bunch of power hitters with hackers. I look at the run the Yankees had and the 13 year run the Braves have had and they all had a nice balanced lineup with power guys and small ball kind of guys. The same goes for St. Louis and Houston who have pretty much dominated the NL Central since the mid '90's.

[JC]

Lets not forget, the 2003 squad was hovering around .500 at the ASB and just completed, or was in the midst, of another terrible losing streak. That 88 win season was way, way overhyped. 88 wins is nothing to get excited about. That record was due to a late season surge. Had the season not ended when it did, it is very, very possible the Cubs would have evened their record out again.

[frostwyrm]

Resiging Nomar wouldn't be so bad, but unfortunately I really think Neifi will be back for 2006. Just the fact that Macias and Neifi have both been on the roster all year shows that the organization highly values these types, and I don't sense any dissatisfaction with Neifi's performance.

[BleedCubbieBlue81]

What I cant' figure out is why the 2003 Cubs got motivated under Baker, but the 2005 didn't. Where did it all go wrong?

 

Better starting pitching? I don't have any numbers, but I don't think the 2003 offense was any better than this year's offense.

 

The 2003 team came in as underdogs. There was no pressure on them to win, so they played like there was no pressure. Then last year, some had them pegged as World Series champs. They collapsed under the pressure. And now with the raised expectations throughout the city, some of that pressure remains. Amazingly, only 3 people are still here from that 2003 team: Kerry Wood, Mark Prior, and Aramis Ramirez

 

EDIT: 3 people from the PLAYOFF team. CPatt was out for most of that season.

 

Thanks for making Carlos Zambrano cry.

 

Damn, I knew I was forgetting someone. How do I forget the most animated member of the team? My bad...

[UMFan83]

Exactly, 2003 was about a bunch of veterans and young starters that got hot at the right time and made it to the NLCS. I don't blame Hendry and MacPhail for stripping the team and revamping. They built around the right players, but those other 21 guys they got were wrong for whatever reason

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Resiging Nomar wouldn't be so bad, but unfortunately I really think Neifi will be back for 2006. Just the fact that Macias and Neifi have both been on the roster all year shows that the organization highly values these types, and I don't sense any dissatisfaction with Neifi's performance.

 

That's the day that I lose a lot of hope, if Neifi is brought back.

[CuseCubFan69]

What I cant' figure out is why the 2003 Cubs got motivated under Baker, but the 2005 didn't. Where did it all go wrong?

 

Better starting pitching? I don't have any numbers, but I don't think the 2003 offense was any better than this year's offense.

 

The 2003 team came in as underdogs. There was no pressure on them to win, so they played like there was no pressure. Then last year, some had them pegged as World Series champs. They collapsed under the pressure. And now with the raised expectations throughout the city, some of that pressure remains. Amazingly, only 3 people are still here from that 2003 team: Kerry Wood, Mark Prior, and Aramis Ramirez

 

EDIT: 3 people from the PLAYOFF team. CPatt was out for most of that season.

 

Sometimes I feel that this team can not handle pressure.

[dalgreen]

Resiging Nomar wouldn't be so bad, but unfortunately I really think Neifi will be back for 2006. Just the fact that Macias and Neifi have both been on the roster all year shows that the organization highly values these types, and I don't sense any dissatisfaction with Neifi's performance.

 

That's the day that I lose a lot of hope, if Neifi is brought back.

 

Can you guys tell me why Neifi would be bad as a true 25th man? Unless you bring back Nomar and know he's likely to have at least one stint on the 15-day disabled list then I could see why you wouldn't want him as a backup. But if that's the case you shouldn't re-sign Nomar. I'm just trying to figure out how many better backup shortstops there are in the majors. Okay, maybe you might want to go with Ronny Cedeno. I just hope everyone realizes this is his first season with good offensive numbers. So if he's your backup and Nomar misses a month or two of the year, is Cedeno going to be an adequate offensive player at shortstop?

[Fanzones trumpet]

I would love to know MacPhail's answer to why there's a blatant disparity between pitching and position talent that has been produced. Is it scouting? Is it player development? It's really incredible to have produced few real major league talented position players. It's based on this that I have higher hopes on Murton's future than Dubois' or Pie's future.

 

My theory is that they've emphasized pitching at the expense of position players in the 1st round of the draft. in the Hendry era, they've only taken position players in the 1st round 3 times: Patterson (1998), Montanez (2000) and Harvey (2003). An example of the preference is taking Prior instead of Texeira in 2001. A more unfortunate example is using five high draft picks in 2002 on pitchers, including taking Brownlie ahead of Jeff Francouer.

[BleedCubbieBlue81]

Resiging Nomar wouldn't be so bad, but unfortunately I really think Neifi will be back for 2006. Just the fact that Macias and Neifi have both been on the roster all year shows that the organization highly values these types, and I don't sense any dissatisfaction with Neifi's performance.

 

That's the day that I lose a lot of hope, if Neifi is brought back.

 

Can you guys tell me why Neifi would be bad as a true 25th man? Unless you bring back Nomar and know he's likely to have at least one stint on the 15-day disabled list then I could see why you wouldn't want him as a backup. But if that's the case you shouldn't re-sign Nomar. I'm just trying to figure out how many better backup shortstops there are in the majors. Okay, maybe you might want to go with Ronny Cedeno. I just hope everyone realizes this is his first season with good offensive numbers. So if he's your backup and Nomar misses a month or two of the year, is Cedeno going to be an adequate offensive player at shortstop?

 

One year of good numbers (in his rookie year) is better than zero years of good numbers for Neifi. He had one good month this season. Other than that, he's done more harm than good.

 

I'd love to see Nomar back for another year. Don't overpay though.

[dalgreen]

Exactly, 2003 was about a bunch of veterans and young starters that got hot at the right time and made it to the NLCS. I don't blame Hendry and MacPhail for stripping the team and revamping. They built around the right players, but those other 21 guys they got were wrong for whatever reason

 

And Houston's collapse against the Brewers, which was as bad as our losing to the Reds the last week of the season last year.

[BleedCubbieBlue81]

Exactly, 2003 was about a bunch of veterans and young starters that got hot at the right time and made it to the NLCS. I don't blame Hendry and MacPhail for stripping the team and revamping. They built around the right players, but those other 21 guys they got were wrong for whatever reason

 

And Houston's collapse against the Brewers, which was as bad as our losing to the Reds the last week of the season last year.

 

Yeah, I remember that. I saw that Houston was playing the Brewers and just about gave up hope. Who would've thought Milwaukee would ever help the Cubs out?

[dalgreen]

Resiging Nomar wouldn't be so bad, but unfortunately I really think Neifi will be back for 2006. Just the fact that Macias and Neifi have both been on the roster all year shows that the organization highly values these types, and I don't sense any dissatisfaction with Neifi's performance.

 

That's the day that I lose a lot of hope, if Neifi is brought back.

 

Can you guys tell me why Neifi would be bad as a true 25th man? Unless you bring back Nomar and know he's likely to have at least one stint on the 15-day disabled list then I could see why you wouldn't want him as a backup. But if that's the case you shouldn't re-sign Nomar. I'm just trying to figure out how many better backup shortstops there are in the majors. Okay, maybe you might want to go with Ronny Cedeno. I just hope everyone realizes this is his first season with good offensive numbers. So if he's your backup and Nomar misses a month or two of the year, is Cedeno going to be an adequate offensive player at shortstop?

 

One year of good numbers (in his rookie year) is better than zero years of good numbers for Neifi. He had one good month this season. Other than that, he's done more harm than good.

 

I'd love to see Nomar back for another year. Don't overpay though.

 

I am not about ready to defend Perez. But I will say this, if you told me on April 1st that he'd have the numbers he has right now in the number of games he's played, I'd take them. Personally, I thought he'd be a .230 hitter with a .250 OBP. But I don't want him to backup if Nomar is re-signed because I already expect Nomar to miss many, many games next year. That's why you have to go with a very capable backup shortstop. Or better yet, not re-sign Nomar.

[dalgreen]

I would love to know MacPhail's answer to why there's a blatant disparity between pitching and position talent that has been produced. Is it scouting? Is it player development? It's really incredible to have produced few real major league talented position players. It's based on this that I have higher hopes on Murton's future than Dubois' or Pie's future.

 

My theory is that they've emphasized pitching at the expense of position players in the 1st round of the draft. in the Hendry era, they've only taken position players in the 1st round 3 times: Patterson (1998), Montanez (2000) and Harvey (2003). An example of the preference is taking Prior instead of Texeira in 2001. A more unfortunate example is using five high draft picks in 2002 on pitchers, including taking Brownlie ahead of Jeff Francouer.

 

Yeah, but a lot of times the baseball draft can be a crapshoot. I still don't know why you can't draft position players even in rounds let's say 4-9 and not still have talent left. Heck, even diamonds in the rough. I still say there's some sort of difference in scouting or in player development between our pitching and position prospects.

[CuseCubFan69]

Resiging Nomar wouldn't be so bad, but unfortunately I really think Neifi will be back for 2006. Just the fact that Macias and Neifi have both been on the roster all year shows that the organization highly values these types, and I don't sense any dissatisfaction with Neifi's performance.

 

That's the day that I lose a lot of hope, if Neifi is brought back.

 

Can you guys tell me why Neifi would be bad as a true 25th man? Unless you bring back Nomar and know he's likely to have at least one stint on the 15-day disabled list then I could see why you wouldn't want him as a backup. But if that's the case you shouldn't re-sign Nomar. I'm just trying to figure out how many better backup shortstops there are in the majors. Okay, maybe you might want to go with Ronny Cedeno. I just hope everyone realizes this is his first season with good offensive numbers. So if he's your backup and Nomar misses a month or two of the year, is Cedeno going to be an adequate offensive player at shortstop?

 

One year of good numbers (in his rookie year) is better than zero years of good numbers for Neifi. He had one good month this season. Other than that, he's done more harm than good.

 

I'd love to see Nomar back for another year. Don't overpay though.

 

I am not about ready to defend Perez. But I will say this, if you told me on April 1st that he'd have the numbers he has right now in the number of games he's played, I'd take them. Personally, I thought he'd be a .230 hitter with a .250 OBP. But I don't want him to backup if Nomar is re-signed because I already expect Nomar to miss many, many games next year. That's why you have to go with a very capable backup shortstop. Or better yet, not re-sign Nomar.

 

I agree Dal and if Dusty could learn how to use Perez I'd be fine with him as a defensive/injury replacement. Hendry has to get Baker some more quality veteran tools if he wants the Cubs to win.

[leatherguts]

I would love to know MacPhail's answer to why there's a blatant disparity between pitching and position talent that has been produced. Is it scouting? Is it player development? It's really incredible to have produced few real major league talented position players. It's based on this that I have higher hopes on Murton's future than Dubois' or Pie's future.

 

Link

 

The Sun-Times address your question, but doesn't really answer it.

 

Asked if the Cubs should have developed more position-player talent by now, MacPhail said: "If you ever develop a surplus of pitching, you can get whatever you want position-player-wise. I'm confident the formula is going to get us there. Despite what appears now to be a hovering-around-.500 year, I'm confident we are going the right direction.''

 

In my opinion, if you are going to create this so-called "surplus", then you trade it for young positional talent, not over-the-hill stop gaps. At the same time, I don't really see that this surpless has even emerged. The Rule V draft prohibits you from stockpiling ML-ready arms (lest Andy forget the Sisco Fiasco).

 

Its all double talk. I no longer have much use for MacPhail.

 

 

 

Here's my problem with what MacPhail is saying: If that is the true organizational philosophy, to emphasize pitching in the draft and acquire positional talent via free agency, why has the biggest offseason acquistion in the past few years been Greg Maddux?

[Fanzones trumpet]

I would love to know MacPhail's answer to why there's a blatant disparity between pitching and position talent that has been produced. Is it scouting? Is it player development? It's really incredible to have produced few real major league talented position players. It's based on this that I have higher hopes on Murton's future than Dubois' or Pie's future.

 

Link

 

The Sun-Times address your question, but doesn't really answer it.

 

Asked if the Cubs should have developed more position-player talent by now, MacPhail said: "If you ever develop a surplus of pitching, you can get whatever you want position-player-wise. I'm confident the formula is going to get us there. Despite what appears now to be a hovering-around-.500 year, I'm confident we are going the right direction.''

 

In my opinion, if you are going to create this so-called "surplus", then you trade it for young positional talent, not over-the-hill stop gaps. At the same time, I don't really see that this surpless has even emerged. The Rule V draft prohibits you from stockpiling ML-ready arms (lest Andy forget the Sisco Fiasco).

 

Its all double talk. I no longer have much use for MacPhail.

 

 

 

Here's my problem with what MacPhail is saying: If that is the true organizational philosophy, to emphasize pitching in the draft and acquire positional talent via free agency, why has the biggest offseason acquistion in the past few years been Greg Maddux?

 

The idea isn't to acquire positional talent through free agency; it's to acquire it through trade of surplus pitching. The strategy works only if you develop the surplus. Three years ago it looked like they had it, with Prior, Wood, Z, Clement and Cruz in the major leagues and a bunch of promising arms in the system; unfortunately injuries (Blasko, Hagerty, Guzman, Wylie) took their toll.

[wastra]

I think a lot has to do with how the cubs approach talent evaluation.

 

the Cubs are old-school toolsy kinda guys. they just are. Damn the OBP, Damn the performance numbers. Damn sabermetrics. Damn the control numbers. Damn the amount of walks. Damn the number of times he swigns for the fences and whiffs. Tell me how hard he throws and how much it moves. tell me how his swing looks and tell me how much power he'll generate.

 

That approach works better for pitchers than hitters. With pitcher's they're starting with the one thing you can't develop or teach: "stuff." Either you got it or you don't. You can TEACH control.

 

With hitting, it's the opposite. Guys can bulk up. they can develop power, but generally, you've either got discipline or you don't. So the toolsy approach to hitting is, IMO, a backwards approach. When scouting hitters, they should look at guys with some clue as to how to approach an at-bat, then weed out the ones with no hope of ever being good at it. That leaves you with guys who can judge the strikezone at some level, AND have the tools to do it successfully.

 

 

 

As for neifi- I'm fine with him as a 25th man at some level, but on our team, he WILL NEVER BE A 25TH MAN. Our manager openly likes to play everyone often. So he'll get twice as many atbats and starts as any other team's 25th man. On top of that, Dusty loves this 25th man in particular (not ripping Dusty for either of these traits).

 

So if you know your manager prefers to play the scrubs whenever possible, you can't give him scrubs who aren't solid players. Knowing Dusty's philosophy- go with Vets, and play ALL the vets whenever you can, that means you can't field a standard bench, it needs to be better than mosto ther teams' benches would be.

 

 

That's not a knock on Dusty. that's the philosophy he openly proclaimed when he came here. It's a knock on roster construction that has 2-4 pretty piss-poor vets at any given time that we KNOW will get a ton of pt.

[Fanzones trumpet]

I think a lot has to do with how the cubs approach talent evaluation.

 

the Cubs are old-school toolsy kinda guys. they just are. Damn the OBP, Damn the performance numbers. Damn sabermetrics. Damn the control numbers. Damn the amount of walks. Damn the number of times he swigns for the fences and whiffs. Tell me how hard he throws and how much it moves. tell me how his swing looks and tell me how much power he'll generate.

 

That approach works better for pitchers than hitters. With pitcher's they're starting with the one thing you can't develop or teach: "stuff." Either you got it or you don't. You can TEACH control.

 

The Braves have used the same scouting philosophy for 15 years and haven't had any trouble developing positional players.

 

As for neifi- I'm fine with him as a 25th man at some level, but on our team, he WILL NEVER BE A 25TH MAN. Our manager openly likes to play everyone often. So he'll get twice as many atbats and starts as any other team's 25th man. On top of that, Dusty loves this 25th man in particular (not ripping Dusty for either of these traits).

 

So if you know your manager prefers to play the scrubs whenever possible, you can't give him scrubs who aren't solid players. Knowing Dusty's philosophy- go with Vets, and play ALL the vets whenever you can, that means you can't field a standard bench, it needs to be better than mosto ther teams' benches would be.

 

 

That's not a knock on Dusty. that's the philosophy he openly proclaimed when he came here. It's a knock on roster construction that has 2-4 pretty piss-poor vets at any given time that we KNOW will get a ton of pt.

[Fanzones trumpet]

I would love to know MacPhail's answer to why there's a blatant disparity between pitching and position talent that has been produced. Is it scouting? Is it player development? It's really incredible to have produced few real major league talented position players. It's based on this that I have higher hopes on Murton's future than Dubois' or Pie's future.

 

My theory is that they've emphasized pitching at the expense of position players in the 1st round of the draft. in the Hendry era, they've only taken position players in the 1st round 3 times: Patterson (1998), Montanez (2000) and Harvey (2003). An example of the preference is taking Prior instead of Texeira in 2001. A more unfortunate example is using five high draft picks in 2002 on pitchers, including taking Brownlie ahead of Jeff Francouer.

 

Yeah, but a lot of times the baseball draft can be a crapshoot. I still don't know why you can't draft position players even in rounds let's say 4-9 and not still have talent left. Heck, even diamonds in the rough. I still say there's some sort of difference in scouting or in player development between our pitching and position prospects.

 

You're correct that talent can be found in later rounds (Pujols is the best current case). It is surprising that they haven't found at least one quality guy in the later rounds (they did find Hinske in round 17). But the reality is that if an organization doesn't draft position players in Round 1, it cuts down its chances of developing an impact guy significantly. It's interesting that this pitcher/position player dichotomy long predates Hendry/Macphail. The Cubs of the late 60s/70s developed a good number of quality pitchers but no position players (although Joe Carter was the last #1 pick of the Wrigley regime). The only time they've developed position players over the past 45 years was Green/Goldsberry. But in that era, they only developed one quality pitcher for the team --Maddux--and had several high profile pitching busts with #1 picks (Davidson, Hall, Masters). (Green/Goldsberry also developed Moyer but he didn't emerge until long after he left the Cubs.)

[wastra]

If I remember correctly, the last two position players the Cubs picked first were Patterson and Harvey, right? Am I missing one between them?

[Fanzones trumpet]

If I remember correctly, the last two position players the Cubs picked first were Patterson and Harvey, right? Am I missing one between them?

 

They picked Montanez in 2000.