What the Cubs aren't: Is it me or do the Braves...

[Outshined_One]

I could also point to the Aramis Ramirez and Derrek Lee trades as an example of seeing a young player with a lot of talent.

 

so you mean like....Dontrelle?

 

Yes, because clearly Ryan Jorgensen and Jose Cueto blossomed into perrenial all stars and the Marlins completely and utterly fleeced the Cubs.

 

Look, I did not make the claim that these guys were flawless; they've made their share of screwups and I'm more than happy to hold them accountable for it. Bringing Jose Macias back and giving him a raise, for example.

 

But, in that particular instance, I think the the vast majority of people out there did not think that Willis would become a Cy Young contender. At the time, he was a throw-in. He had horrible control issues and excessive wildness. Most people saw him as becoming a 4/5 starter or a LOOGY when all was said and done. His delivery didn't exactly inspire confidence about his long term health, either.

 

Clement gave the Cubs three good years and helped propel them into the playoffs in 2003. Has Willis stayed with the Cubs, I'm almost positive he would not have seen the majors that year. Remember, at the time he was called up, the Marlins were seen as being out of it and ended up calling up anyone with any degree of promise. Had he stayed with the Cubs, I don't know if any of us could quite say what his career would look like right now, whether he'd be in the pen or the rotation or injured or whatever.

 

Plus, if anything, Willis gives those guys their share of credit. The Cubs actually did draft him and help him develop, ya know? You don't think other teams out there are looking at the Cubs' farm system right now wondering if there's another Dontrelle Willis in there? It definitely makes the Cubs farm system look a lot better.

 

The Cubs didn't end up becoming the winners of that deal, I'll grant you that. But there were enough positive results out of it that I wouldn't call it an utter disaster like some people on this board would.

[dalgreen]

It says something when Murton, who's not a product of ours, is one of our best prospects already.

 

If anything, I think this is a testament to how well Jim Hendry and scouting recognize talent in a young player. Most people saw Murton as an after-thought in the Nomar deal, yet somehow he's managed to blossom into one of the best young players with the Cubs today.

 

Want more examples? The Kyle Farnsworth deal got the Cubs one decent reliever with a nice upside (Novoa), a third baseman who broke out this year (Moore), and an intriguing young guy down in Low A (Flowers). Shipping Matt Lawton to the Yankees got the Cubs a guy who has one of the best GB/FB ratios in the system (Berg). I could also point to the Aramis Ramirez and Derrek Lee trades as an example of seeing a young player with a lot of talent.

 

So, to put this into perspective, I do think this organization has people in it who are able to spot these players. When it comes to homegrown players, I think a combination of things have to be taken into account:

 

1) Injuries are always crippling. They have caused major setbacks for the following players, among others: Chad Blasko, Billy Petrick, JK Ryu, Angel Guzman, Nic Jackson, Mark Reed, Brandon Sing, Sean Marshall, Aaron Krawiec, Bobby Brownlie, and Luke Hagerty. These guys would be so much more highly regarded if they were healthy. Unfortunately, these things happen in all systems. It's just been rather bad for the Cubs recently, from what I have seen.

 

2) The visa crackdown. This one especially hurt last year, as memory serves me. Now that things have finally been worked out, the Cubs can finally bring over a lot of the guys they've been trying to get in through the Dominican Republic, among other places.

 

3) I have to wonder how the Cubs psychologically evaluate players. Given the struggles of some of their guys as they approach the higher levels of the systems, I'm curious as to whether it's because of the nature of baseball or if it's something in some guy's heads. I don't know how the Cubs do things at this level, so I'd like to hear an answer as to what they do.

 

4) You have to admit, the farm system has churned out some really good pitching. We've seen these guys produce really well (Wood, Prior, Zambrano) at various times and levels. Other guys have the potential to become effective in the near future (Hill, Wellemeyer, Wuertz, Leicester, Mitre, Ohman) in various capacities and have produced in the major leagues. Yes, I know it's trendy to trash these guys for whatever reason, but the bottom line remains that they are young players with a heck of a lot more upside than most other pitching prospects out there.

 

Once the Cubs get a manager who's willing to actually coach and who actually knows how to use a bullpen, I think we'll be looking at our farm system with much better eyes.

 

You will never hear me be overly critical of our young homegrown arms, but position players, you bet and I've been critical now for a couple seasons. In your list of injured players, most of them are pitchers. My comment goes towards our lack of producing good position players and keeping them. Regarding Lee, I'm a big fan of his but this time last year I don't think there were many people using him as a testament to Hendry's and others' abilities to scout young talent. Perhaps someone can pull up that thread that Goony (I think) started listing who our starting eight would be if the players had to stay with their original team.

[Satch80]

I'm not convinced about the plate discipline argument. Francouer, Atlanta's best prospect came to the majors with absolutely NO plate discipline. So...do they not teach it in the Atlanta system either?

Maybe it's more about the player.

Eric Patterson has it

Corey Patterson doesn't.

 

Bobby Hill and Choi, two major prospects still haven't been able to be developed to their "potential" by other teams. Maybe their potential isn't what we thought it was.

 

We have concentrated on drafting and developing pitching. We have fronline starters in Wood, Prior and Z. All home grown. We are not at the mercy of paying inflated $$$ for overpriced pitching on the free agent market. How many other teams can say that?

Indirectly, we acquired Murton for Beltran ( homegrown). Hill ( homegrown) was part of what brought us Aramis and Choi ( homegrown) brought us Lee. I would say that's 3 homegrowners that really uphgraded our team.What more can you ask?

 

Mitre, Weurtz, Welleyeyer, Hill, Novoa ( for homegrown Farnsworth) are all pitchers with good stuff that need to learn consistency in the majors. Some do, some never do, some take time. ( Like Garland) But the prospects are there and developing.

 

The Cub's farm system doesn't seem too bad.

[dalgreen]

I'm not convinced about the plate discipline argument. Francouer, Atlanta's best prospect came to the majors with absolutely NO plate discipline. So...do they not teach it in the Atlanta system either?

Maybe it's more about the player.

Eric Patterson has it

Corey Patterson doesn't.

 

Bobby Hill and Choi, two major prospects still haven't been able to be developed to their "potential" by other teams. Maybe their potential isn't what we thought it was.

 

We have concentrated on drafting and developing pitching. We have fronline starters in Wood, Prior and Z. All home grown. We are not at the mercy of paying inflated $$$ for overpriced pitching on the free agent market. How many other teams can say that?

Indirectly, we acquired Murton for Beltran ( homegrown). Hill ( homegrown) was part of what brought us Aramis and Choi ( homegrown) brought us Lee. I would say that's 3 homegrowners that really uphgraded our team.What more can you ask?

 

Mitre, Weurtz, Welleyeyer, Hill, Novoa ( for homegrown Farnsworth) are all pitchers with good stuff that need to learn consistency in the majors. Some do, some never do, some take time. ( Like Garland) But the prospects are there and developing.

 

The Cub's farm system doesn't seem too bad.

 

Again, my criticism isn't with our arms, but our lack of young, good position players. The thing that bothers me is that our philosophy gets too hung up on tools. Going after guys with tools isn't bad if you can develop their tools, which I think we've done a bad job of. I forgot, who did we trade Hinske for?

[Outshined_One]

You will never hear me be overly critical of our young homegrown arms, but position players, you bet and I've been critical now for a couple seasons. In your list of injured players, most of them are pitchers. My comment goes towards our lack of producing good position players and keeping them. Regarding Lee, I'm a big fan of his but this time last year I don't think there were many people using him as a testament to Hendry's and others' abilities to scout young talent. Perhaps someone can pull up that thread that Goony (I think) started listing who our starting eight would be if the players had to stay with their original team.

 

I don't really know what it is about our farm system that's caused so many problems in attempting to develop positional prospects into decent everyday players. Maybe it's a product of focusing heavily on pitching in the draft, maybe it's something else. Taking a look back at Tim's Top 30 Prospects in 2003...

 

1) 1B Hee Seop Choi - Big hole in his swing, but still has potential and room to grow. Might become a decent everyday guy down the line.

2) OF Nic Jackson - Injuries derailed his career.

3) IF Brendan Harris - Traded to an organization that's pretty much set at 2B, where he would have been most useful. Couple that with him not having the range at SS or the power for 3B and you have some issues...

6) CF Felix Pie - Should see the majors next year; the jury's still out on him, though.

11) OF David Kelton - Seems destined for a utility role. Can crush fastballs, but breaking balls give him fits.

20) OF Jason Dubois - On a team that's set at DH (Hafner) and has a bunch of supremely talented OFs. Still could be an everyday guy, but not in Cleveland.

22) 1B/OF Kevin Collins - He only has one good tool and that's his power. Other than that, there's not much else. Should be in AA next season.

26) OF Ray Sadler - Currently hanging out in Pittsburgh and hasn't exactly done much there.

28) 3B Alfredo Francisco - Moved to a relief role, still in the Cubs' system.

29) 2B Ryan Theriot - Seems destined for a utility role, but had a nice season at AA and could be a decent bench guy next season.

30) OF Adam Greenberg - Scrappy 5th utility fielder. Probably won't be a full-time starter. Nice guy to have in the clubhouse, though.

31) OF/1B Brandon Sing - Mono set his career back, but he put up really good numbers at AA. I like his patience and power. He may yet amount to something, but that remains to be seen.

 

Yeah, I can't exactly say I'm thrilled at what's happened to those guys.

[MeatampPotatoesMan]

I'm not convinced about the plate discipline argument. Francouer, Atlanta's best prospect came to the majors with absolutely NO plate discipline. So...do they not teach it in the Atlanta system either?

Maybe it's more about the player.

Eric Patterson has it

Corey Patterson doesn't.

 

Bobby Hill and Choi, two major prospects still haven't been able to be developed to their "potential" by other teams. Maybe their potential isn't what we thought it was.

 

We have concentrated on drafting and developing pitching. We have fronline starters in Wood, Prior and Z. All home grown. We are not at the mercy of paying inflated $$$ for overpriced pitching on the free agent market. How many other teams can say that?

Indirectly, we acquired Murton for Beltran ( homegrown). Hill ( homegrown) was part of what brought us Aramis and Choi ( homegrown) brought us Lee. I would say that's 3 homegrowners that really uphgraded our team.What more can you ask?

 

Mitre, Weurtz, Welleyeyer, Hill, Novoa ( for homegrown Farnsworth) are all pitchers with good stuff that need to learn consistency in the majors. Some do, some never do, some take time. ( Like Garland) But the prospects are there and developing.

 

The Cub's farm system doesn't seem too bad.

 

Prior wasn't exactly "homegrown." He spent less than a season in the minors...he was basically a finished project out of college and just had to go through the motions to reach the bigs.

 

We're proud of the job our system has done with Wood? ...the man with all the talent who either can't correct his mechanics or is suffering from something our system can't solve.

 

We did develop Z. Good job there. He's a stud.

 

Francouer doesn't have plate discipline and it's going to catch up to him. Pitchers aren't stupid. Word of where your hole is gets around and everyone has a hole. Pitchers in the bigs leagues know how to exploit that hole and hit it (they don't make the bigs if they can't). Francouer is in for a monster flop unless he adapts, which is possible.

[series65cubsfan]

 

I could also point to the Aramis Ramirez and Derrek Lee trades as an example of seeing a young player with a lot of talent.

 

so you mean like....Dontrelle?

 

When the the trade happened, I among others of us at NSBB were at cubs.com The only person I really remember being distraught at the thought of losing Dontrelle was Borgie. I don't remember what SCF felt at the time. But resoundingly the trade was considered a good one. You get Clement who can pitch effectively and Alfonseca who had just come off a good year for little. Only in hind sight would many teams have even put Dontrelle in the rotation with his lack of experience or success.

[series65cubsfan]

I'm not convinced about the plate discipline argument. Francouer, Atlanta's best prospect came to the majors with absolutely NO plate discipline. So...do they not teach it in the Atlanta system either?

Maybe it's more about the player.

Eric Patterson has it

Corey Patterson doesn't.

 

Bobby Hill and Choi, two major prospects still haven't been able to be developed to their "potential" by other teams. Maybe their potential isn't what we thought it was.

 

We have concentrated on drafting and developing pitching. We have fronline starters in Wood, Prior and Z. All home grown. We are not at the mercy of paying inflated $$$ for overpriced pitching on the free agent market. How many other teams can say that?

Indirectly, we acquired Murton for Beltran ( homegrown). Hill ( homegrown) was part of what brought us Aramis and Choi ( homegrown) brought us Lee. I would say that's 3 homegrowners that really uphgraded our team.What more can you ask?

 

Mitre, Weurtz, Welleyeyer, Hill, Novoa ( for homegrown Farnsworth) are all pitchers with good stuff that need to learn consistency in the majors. Some do, some never do, some take time. ( Like Garland) But the prospects are there and developing.

 

The Cub's farm system doesn't seem too bad.

 

Again, my criticism isn't with our arms, but our lack of young, good position players. The thing that bothers me is that our philosophy gets too hung up on tools. Going after guys with tools isn't bad if you can develop their tools, which I think we've done a bad job of. I forgot, who did we trade Hinske for?

 

Wasn't Hinske traded for Chiasson? There might have been more to the deal but that what I remember.

[Soul]

The facts are simple and irrefutable. The Cubs do not have a successful track record of developing good young position players in the minors. Our minor league system from top to bottom has shown a lack of competence in developing the players we do have, as well as bringing in guys who are capable of developing.

 

And until it is fixed, we will not be successful long-term unless we can somehow manage to put together a team through free-agency and trades at the major league level. Other teams have done this successfully so it can work (Yanks, BoSox, Cards). But it's like trying to run a marathon with an injured leg: sure, you can still make it the distance, but wouldn't you rather be pumping on all cylinders?

[stitchface]

Amazingly, no one has mentioned the cubs biggest flaw in developing players - they don't play them. No one wil become a major league player sitting on the bench.

 

 

I have to agree that Francoeur is going to crash and burn if he doesn't learn some plate discipline.

[BigbadB]

Hinske was traded for Miguel Cairo. Unbelievably, the Cubs let Cairo get picked up via waivers by none other than St. Louis.

 

Mark Bellhorn was chosen via the Rule V draft.

 

Adam Morrissey was traded for Scott Chiasson.

 

I would have made that Clement deal again knowing Willis could be that good. Willis was not in a position to help the Cubs. Clement was. I didn't care for Alfonseca in that deal, but the team did need bullpen help in the worst way. If the team is in a position to win now, you can trade guys who can't help you now for someone who can.

 

Would the Cubs have made it to the postseason in 2003 without Clement? The only real options (don't forget that Shaun Estes was the 5th starter that year) were Cruz and Mitre. Mitre made his first two big league starts that year and Cruz was pretty much ruined by Dusty that year.

[Satch80]

"Francouer doesn't have plate discipline and it's going to catch up to him. "

 

Possibly. But then there are exceptions like Vlade ( his hero) and some other very successful free swingers.

But my point in bringing up the disciplne thing with Francoeur was that just because you end up with swing-at-everything players like Francoeur and Corey doesn't mean that's the Organizational philosophy. Most hitting coaches probably try to teach plate discipline at every level in every organization, but it's up to the player to adapt if they can. And that's where Organizational philosophies in drafting play a huge part in what type of player we end up with.

 

In the Moneyball book, Beane states that he DRAFTS discipline hitters because this is a trait that cannot be effectively taught. So if an organization is paying more attention to tools or power and little attention to plate discipline then it's very possible to end up with players like Corey, with little plate discipline, not because it's not taught in our minor system, but because it can't be effectively learned. If you don't draft 'em, you don't get 'em. Boston probably drafted Murton with that aspect in mind. Without a sabermetrically oriented Organization this probably won't change.

 

I don't have a problem with not having homegrown positional players in our lineup as long as we are drafting enough useful trading chips to upgrade our team and I think we have. St Louis has used this approach very effectively over the years. They have only Pujols and Molina from their system and Molina just this year.

 

Probably the reason we have not drafted any super star type position player is that we have concentrated on pitching and I think that's the best approach. It is very very difficult to get top tier pitching unless you grow them yourself or spend megabucks on high risk FA. Just look at the Yankees.

This is the model Atlanta started with and obviously proved very successful. Only in later years did they have to concentrate on drafting position players because success means drafting lower and lower and top tier pitchers are taken first.

 

I think Hendry has the right idea. Draft and develop pitchers, plug in bats, use minor level arms and position players as trade bait. The problem has been injuries to these elite pitchers, an unlucky signing ( Nomar), not enough emphasis on defense, a Corey collapse, a grab bag bullpen and some poor managerial decisions ( Dusty).

Most of these can be corrected. Injuries, of course, not included.

 

Bottom line, I still feel good about the Cub's direction, and Hendry guiding the ship. I'm worried about Dusty because some of his decisions were absolutely beyond dumb, such as Corey/Nefi batting 1-2, Hawkins as closer, Holly an everyday player, Macias starting, etc.

The only way around this is for Hendry to construct a lineup written in granite that stays healthy. Not likely to happen, so I'll worry about Dusty every season until he is gone.

[NewUserName]

The truth about the Cubs position players is they seem to be the last resort instead of being a priority. Alot of teams(the Braves being one of them) play rookies. Sometimes the rookies do not do well for a couple of weeks. They still get a chance to play. I have seen many of cub fan say lets get someone else from another team instead of playing the rookies on our own team. A quick example was the Cubs trading Hundley for karros and Grudz. Yes it was a good trade but it put a limit on the development of Hill and Choi. Would they be great players today if the Cubs would have just let them play? Who knows. Neither one is a bad player though and if they were given a chance to play everyday maybe they would be more valuable.

 

Besides Patterson who was the last Cub positional rookie to be given more than a month of starts? The last part of a players development is the first couple of years of major league baseball. Most players do not come up and preform at a high level right away. Look at Ensburg and Lane for the Astros. They have become very valuable players though and still have years to improve. Next year I expect Taveras and Everett to become even more valuable. All of these players on the Cubs would have never been given a decent chance.

 

This is why I think it would be in the Cubs best interest to just let Cedeno and Murton be the starters next year. Also do not bring in a insurance policy in case they dont work out. Dusty has already proven the insurance will be used first and the youngsters as a second thought.

[cubbieinexile]

Hinske was traded for Miguel Cairo. Unbelievably, the Cubs let Cairo get picked up via waivers by none other than St. Louis.

 

Mark Bellhorn was chosen via the Rule V draft.

 

Adam Morrissey was traded for Scott Chiasson.

 

I would have made that Clement deal again knowing Willis could be that good. Willis was not in a position to help the Cubs. Clement was. I didn't care for Alfonseca in that deal, but the team did need bullpen help in the worst way. If the team is in a position to win now, you can trade guys who can't help you now for someone who can.

 

Would the Cubs have made it to the postseason in 2003 without Clement? The only real options (don't forget that Shaun Estes was the 5th starter that year) were Cruz and Mitre. Mitre made his first two big league starts that year and Cruz was pretty much ruined by Dusty that year.

 

Willis wasn't in position to help the Cubs because the Cubs wouldn't let him be in position to help the Cubs. Nor was Clement the answer if the Cubs were looking at 2003 for help. They would have been better off developing Willis instead. You can't look back at that trade in hindsight and expect Clement to do good. Clement wasn't a great pitcher or expected to do much. He was a back of the rotation filler, nothing more. If Hendry was really looking ahead to 2003 then Clement was not the answer, Willis probably would have been the better answer for 2003 and going forward since Clement would be a free agent soon.

[BigbadB]

So the Cubs were supposed to rely on a 21 year old kid who had never seen anything higher than A ball to be the answer to the holes in the rotation? He was actually traded at the age of 20.

 

There was a whole handful of guys more refined, further developed, much more experienced and more mature in the Cubs organization to step into the rotation.

 

Did you also believe this 21 year old kid could go out and get you 200+ innings in 2003? The Cubs already had two other arms in the rotation that probably shouldn't have thrown more than about 170-180 innings in Prior and Zambrano. Throw in Wood and he rehabilitation, and you are really asking for trouble with Estes grabbing all the innings.

 

Dontrelle got noticed because he moved to a system that was barren in the pitching department. The Cubs farm system was full of arms with major league potential.

 

Did I have reason to believe Clement would be a bust? Sure. But, I also believed he had the potential to be a lights out starter. He had nasty stuff. I live in San Diego and watched him. His weakness was the walk. If he cuts his walk rate, he's almost unbeatable with that filthy slider.

 

It's not hindsight to look back and think that Clement could help project us to the playoffs in 2003. We had Wood, Prior and Zambrano (and Cruz too, if Baker didn't have such a love affair over ex Giants). Clement wasn't supposed to be the savior of the team, simply an inning eater that kept the offense in ball games. It's hindsight to look back and say Dontrelle Willis was the answer. A 20 year old kid flowing with talent, yes. But a young kid who can't be expected to advance as quickly as he did through the Marlins organization. To believe that would be to believe that the Cubs should have promoted Andy Sisco this year, Sean Marshall this year, or any other 20 year old pitcher that has a dominant season in lower A ball. Unrealistic.

 

Florida had to trade the talented Mark Kotsay to get Matt Clement. He wasn't just a thrown in. And there were many times that Matt Clement looked more dominant than any other pitcher in the Cubs rotation.

[cubbieinexile]

So the Cubs were supposed to rely on a 27 year old bust with a 5.05 ERA with a 1.61 runner per inning? That was a better option then just letting your youth develop. A youth that the organization and practically everybody outside of it thought was talented? Mark Prior got called up when he was 21 and he had limited time, Zambrano got called up when he was 20.

 

I never said that Willis was the answer, but you said Clement was the answer. Well if the answer was an inning eater type guy then there were plenty of pitchers out there the Cubs could have had for free or at the very least didn't cost them prospects, only the money. Matt Clement was the only 2.5 million dollar innings eater guy out there? Heck there were games that Steve Trachsel looked unbeatable and was the best Cub pitcher out there, that doesn't mean we sit here and hope and prey he pulls it altogether and trade prospects away for him.

[cubbieinexile]

Actually now that I think about it, had the Cubs simply resigned Trachsel after his 2000 or got in the way in 2002 the Cubs could have avoided trading Dontrelle or even needing Clement for 2003. For all the pub Clement gets around here, Trachsel was the better pitcher during Clements tenure here. So the answer wasn't Clement the answer was Trachsel. Signing Trachsel we would have gotten a better pitcher in 2003 and not have lost Willis. And we would have had a better pitcher in 2004, one that started 3 more games and pitched more then 20 more innings then Clement. Who knows that could very well have been the difference in staying home or going to the playoffs.

[Derwood]

I can honestly say that I had never heard of Dontrelle Willis until he hit the scene in Florida. I don't even remember the name at the time of the trade, and I had no idea who he was (compared to other names in the farm system who were closer to the majors)

[BigbadB]

Actually now that I think about it, had the Cubs simply resigned Trachsel after his 2000 or got in the way in 2002 the Cubs could have avoided trading Dontrelle or even needing Clement for 2003. For all the pub Clement gets around here, Trachsel was the better pitcher during Clements tenure here. So the answer wasn't Clement the answer was Trachsel. Signing Trachsel we would have gotten a better pitcher in 2003 and not have lost Willis. And we would have had a better pitcher in 2004, one that started 3 more games and pitched more then 20 more innings then Clement. Who knows that could very well have been the difference in staying home or going to the playoffs.

 

If you go back and look at my original post, you'll see that I did not say Clement was the answer. I said that he was brought in to eat some innings, and was not necessarily meant to be the savior of this team. You can go back and look at teams that made it to the World Series and see guys just like Matt Clement on the back end of their rotations.

 

I won't disagree with you that the Cubs could have resigned Tracshel and they wouldn't have had a need for Clement or to trade Willis.

 

Willis would not have helped the Cubs in 2003. Many other guys would have stepped into the rotation before Willis would have gotten a look. Clement did. Without Clement, the Cubs may not make the playoffs. The Cubs were a team strong enough to go to the World Series in 2003 and almost did it. I was pretty high on Juan Cruz, personally. Why they went with Estes rather than Cruz was beynd me.

 

I wish they hadn't traded Willis. But, it's purely hindsight to presume that Willis would end up being as good as he ended up being in the majors. Or, to assume he would stay fairly healthy all this time. The Cubs had several better left handers (or at least more advanced) in the system when they traded Willis. Jones, Sisco and Sanchez come to mind.

 

If health or other trades were not a factor, I'm not sure Willis would have cracked the Cubs rotation even this year.

 

Wood

Zambrano

Prior

 

Juan Cruz

Angel Guzman

Bobbie Brownlie

Andy Sisco

Justin Jones

Luke Hagerty

Chadd Blasko

Jae-Kuk Ryu

Ricky Nolasco

Renyel Pinto

Felix Sanchez

Sergio Mitre

Steve Smyth

Todd Wellemeyer

 

and maybe a few more that would not only have slowed Willis' advancement through the system, but if they all performed at their highest ceilings may not have allowed Willis to push into the rotation. I'm not saying any are better than Willis. I'm just saying that a lot of these guys were more advanced. Add Willis to that group and you can get a reasonable understanding of why Hendry might have felt he could trade Willis (who was someone who might be able to help the Cubs in the future) for a guy like Clement (who could help the team now).

 

We also can forget that Alfonseca was probably the main target in the trade to help the weak bullpen. Now, I didn't like Alfonseca then, and I still don't like him now. I don't even want to get into that argument.

 

My view is that it was a good trade at the time. Maybe they could have taken a free agent pitcher who could have eaten innings rather than trade for one, but Hendry had an extremely strong farm to use to improve the club and he used it. Whether or not Clement helped the team is subjective. I think he did. I think he would have helped us more if Elias didn't rate free agents based on wins and losses rather than ERA. Clement should have at least been a "B" type free agent. His departure should have netted the Cubs a draft pick.

 

Just looking at Clement's ERA and/or wins and losses, he doesn't look all that impressive. However, I believe he was right up there among the team leaders in 2003 in quality starts. In other words, when he was pitching good, he kept the team in games. When he wasn't pitching good, he got blown out. The 2003 Cubs were fine in the rotation. It was weak in offense, which explains the poor win/loss records of all the Cubs pitchers that year. Zambrano was 13-11 with a 3.11 ERA. Wood was 14-11 with a 3.20 ERA. Clement was 14-12 with a 4.11 ERA. I wish I could see Clement's game log from 2003, because his ERA was in the mid 3's until he started running out of gas in September of that year. The next year, he had a 3.68 ERA. 3.68 was top 30 in the majors this year.

 

Clement was not the answer. He was just one of the pitchers that helped propel the 2003 Cubs into the playoffs and only 5 outs away from the World Series.

[cubbieinexile]

Looking at Clement and saying he helped the Cubs get to the playoffs so therefore it isn't a bad trade is also hindsight. When the trade happened it was a bad trade. There was no reason to believe that Clement would have been better then any option in the Cubs minor league system, and Antonio only had value because he was fortunate enough to get the closer label. It was a trade that didn't need to happen. Clement was a risk, a risk just as big as a minor league player.

 

As for Willis he would be in the majors by now and probably at the very least in 2004. His minor and major leagues stats I thikn prove that he would not have been in the minors for long. His star would have shown through. Plus without Clement in 2003 who knows what would have happened perhaps they would have rotated through the youth like they did this year. We know what Dontrelle could do when given the chance in 2003 with the Marlins so its not really guess work to believe that had the Cubs given him a shot in 2003 he would not have squandered it.

 

The Alfonseca-Clement trade was a bad trade, it was a bad trade because Hendry/MacPhail did not have faith in the Cub minor league system or with the players he had on hand.

[BigbadB]

Okay, Clement didn't do anything numbers wise prior to his time in Chicago that would warrant trading for him. I'll agree with this. Therefore, we are both looking at it in hindsight. Had Willis been traded in this deal and he blew out his arm in the minors and was never heard or seen again, we wouldn't be looking at this trade and saying it was a bad trade. Willis was an unknown commodity at the time of that trade. Honestly, at this point I can't recall whether Florida demanded Willis or if Hendry offered him? I don't know.

 

I think we agree on a lot of issues, I just took exception to Willis and his success with Florida as something the Cubs should have assumed.

 

I wanted Cruz in the rotation in 2003. But, he would have been preventing the Cubs need to sign Estes, not the trade for Clement. If the Cubs went with Wood, Zambrano, Prior and Cruz and one other farmhand or two filling the back end of the rotation, they would have been risking a very young rotation not having the strength to make it a whole season. That's why I didn't have a problem with the Clement trade. He was durable and having watched him for a few seasons in San Diego, I knew that if he worked with the right pitching coach, he had the potential to be even better than he was in his time with the Cubs.

[JC]

Honestly, at this point I can't recall whether Florida demanded Willis or if Hendry offered him? I don't know.

 

I seem to recall that Florida demanded him. If my memory is not faulty, it goes as another example of other teams out scouting/evaluating our own prosects.

[Scott G. F.]

Okay, Clement didn't do anything numbers wise prior to his time in Chicago that would warrant trading for him. I'll agree with this. Therefore, we are both looking at it in hindsight. Had Willis been traded in this deal and he blew out his arm in the minors and was never heard or seen again, we wouldn't be looking at this trade and saying it was a bad trade. Willis was an unknown commodity at the time of that trade. Honestly, at this point I can't recall whether Florida demanded Willis or if Hendry offered him? I don't know.

 

I think we agree on a lot of issues, I just took exception to Willis and his success with Florida as something the Cubs should have assumed.

 

I wanted Cruz in the rotation in 2003. But, he would have been preventing the Cubs need to sign Estes, not the trade for Clement. If the Cubs went with Wood, Zambrano, Prior and Cruz and one other farmhand or two filling the back end of the rotation, they would have been risking a very young rotation not having the strength to make it a whole season. That's why I didn't have a problem with the Clement trade. He was durable and having watched him for a few seasons in San Diego, I knew that if he worked with the right pitching coach, he had the potential to be even better than he was in his time with the Cubs.

 

Reading the threads about Willis and Clement. You have to make trades on the up and up and seek a win -win. It happened to work out better for Florida to a greater extent considering Clement is gone now. The Cubs could have used him last year. He would have given the Cubs 5 to 7 more game wins, if he got the run support that he didn't get the previous year.

 

The thing is. The Cubs don't develop the player, key work develop. They just sign them and hope they learn the game somehow.

 

I feel for Cory Patterson. I believe in a better organization he would have blossomed last year. It's to bad.

[cubbieinexile]

I'm not really talking about the is trade in hindsight becuase at the time of the trade I didn't like the trade. At the time it was viewed as a trade for Alfonseca with Clement as the throw in and the Cubs giving up psycho Tavarez and a bunch of minor leaguers. It wouldn't matter if the Cubs gave up a bag of golf balls for Alfonseca and Clement I still wouldn't have liked the trade.

 

 

In terms of hindsight it turns out that the Cubs already had answers for their rotation and bullpen problems in the system. We as fans and outsiders didn't know that nor could we really get in deep to know it. The cubs should have been able to realize it, but didn't. So they end up making a trade which basically weakens the future by trading the future for mediocre present. Fortunately Clement turned out decent or else the trade would end up being one of the worst trades in Cub history. It might very well still turn out to be the worst trade in the history of the Cubs but at least they got something for Willis.

[Fanzones trumpet]

I wish they hadn't traded Willis. But, it's purely hindsight to presume that Willis would end up being as good as he ended up being in the majors. Or, to assume he would stay fairly healthy all this time. The Cubs had several better left handers (or at least more advanced) in the system when they traded Willis. Jones, Sisco and Sanchez come to mind.

 

I agree that it's purely hindsight, but it's not accurate to say the other guys were more advanced at the time Willis was traded in March 2002.

Willis had been an excellent pitcher at Boise in 2001, and the BA book for 2002 was very complimentary of his understanding of pitching and projectibility. Jones wasn't even drafted until 3 months after Willis had beem traded. Sisco had spent the previous year working on mechanics in rookie ball. Sanchez was in the system and was regarded as having better pure stuff than Willis, but he was at the same level (as was Guzman).

 

The problem with the trade was not necessarily misevaluation of Willis's talent, although the way things look now, it may wind up being one of the two or three worst trades in Cubs' history; it was an overestimation of the parent club's 2002 chances, which precipitated the trade in the first place. The trade was made because the team was desperate for a closer after Gordon went down in spring training, and the brass had convinced itself that the Cubs were a legitimate contender after a fluky 2001 and the signing of Alou. (As you point out, Clement was really the secondary component in that trade.)

 

If health or other trades were not a factor, I'm not sure Willis would have cracked the Cubs rotation even this year.

 

Can't agree with this one. Willis was on the same track as Guzman. MacPhail stated repeatedly that Guzman was going to be called up in July 2003 from AA before hurting his shoulder despite the presence of Clement in the rotation. The Cubs had also called up Cruz from AA in August 2001. If Willis had dominated in the minor leagues for the Cubs in 2002 and 2003, it's a lock he would have made Chicago no later than last year.

 

Just looking at Clement's ERA and/or wins and losses, he doesn't look all that impressive. However, I believe he was right up there among the team leaders in 2003 in quality starts. In other words, when he was pitching good, he kept the team in games. When he wasn't pitching good, he got blown out. The 2003 Cubs were fine in the rotation. It was weak in offense, which explains the poor win/loss records of all the Cubs pitchers that year. Zambrano was 13-11 with a 3.11 ERA. Wood was 14-11 with a 3.20 ERA. Clement was 14-12 with a 4.11 ERA. I wish I could see Clement's game log from 2003, because his ERA was in the mid 3's until he started running out of gas in September of that year. The next year, he had a 3.68 ERA. 3.68 was top 30 in the majors this year.

 

Actually, Clement was lousy in the first part of 2003, to the point where the Cubs skipped a couple of his starts (including one against the Yankees). There's no question he pitched very well the second half of that season and was a major contributor the playoff run. Of course, willis was ROY that year for the eventual champion.