Jim Callis Nuggets

[tgk]

From his ESPN Chat, I just skimmed it and only saw two Cub references. Not really sure which forum this should go in so I'll post it here:

 

Mike (Chico, CA): Hey Jim, which team's farm system improved the most since last year? Who regressed the most? Thanks

 

Jim Callis: I think the team that will make the biggest rise when we do our org rankings in the spring is the Red Sox, who were No. 21 last year. Almost all of their top prospects still qualify and had good years in Double-A or above, plus they added five first-round picks in the draft. You'd think the Braves would be in for a fall after graduating about half their Top 30 list to the majors, but they still have a ton of quality and depth and shouldn't tumble too far past their No. 5 ranking of a year ago. The No. 8 Athletics (a lot of players moved up to Oakland and come off the list) and No. 10 Cubs (a lot of guys had off years and/or stagnated) may drop the most. That's mostly conjecture, as we haven't even discussed the org rankings yet.

 

Aaron (San Antonio, TX): Any chance Epstein ends up in Chicago instead of Hendry?

 

Jim Callis: Not this year. Hendry is on safe ground and I think he's done a pretty good job, though he's too attached to Dusty Baker. Now I've done it. Scoop Jackson will be knocking on my door in suburban Chicago any second.

 

Nothing really new, just thought I'd pass it on.

[Tedward]

From his ESPN Chat, I just skimmed it and only saw two Cub references. Not really sure which forum this should go in so I'll post it here:

 

Mike (Chico, CA): Hey Jim, which team's farm system improved the most since last year? Who regressed the most? Thanks

 

Jim Callis: I think the team that will make the biggest rise when we do our org rankings in the spring is the Red Sox, who were No. 21 last year. Almost all of their top prospects still qualify and had good years in Double-A or above, plus they added five first-round picks in the draft. You'd think the Braves would be in for a fall after graduating about half their Top 30 list to the majors, but they still have a ton of quality and depth and shouldn't tumble too far past their No. 5 ranking of a year ago. The No. 8 Athletics (a lot of players moved up to Oakland and come off the list) and No. 10 Cubs (a lot of guys had off years and/or stagnated) may drop the most. That's mostly conjecture, as we haven't even discussed the org rankings yet.

 

Aaron (San Antonio, TX): Any chance Epstein ends up in Chicago instead of Hendry?

 

Jim Callis: Not this year. Hendry is on safe ground and I think he's done a pretty good job, though he's too attached to Dusty Baker. Now I've done it. Scoop Jackson will be knocking on my door in suburban Chicago any second.

 

Nothing really new, just thought I'd pass it on.

 

I'm not surprised with Callis' remark on the farm system ranking dropping in 2006. John Manuel who also writes for BA hinted a few months back in his "prospect pulse" column that the Cubs system has taken a step back as well.

[YearofDaCubs]

He's right. How many TOP 100 prospects do we have? Not many. All that supposed talent but nothing to show for it.

[RynoRules]

Another reason to trade these guys while their value is highest. 90% of them will never pan out anyway. Keep 3 or 4 who you think are cornerstone -types and deal the rest.

 

See: Braves.

[Burtonbell]

You gotta love the Scoop Jackson dig...LOL

[CuseCubFan69]

Another reason to trade these guys while their value is highest. 90% of them will never pan out anyway. Keep 3 or 4 who you think are cornerstone -types and deal the rest.

 

See: Braves.

 

Yep. Let's have Hendry evaluate these guys correctly and make these types of deals.

[USSoccer]

Another reason to trade these guys while their value is highest. 90% of them will never pan out anyway. Keep 3 or 4 who you think are cornerstone -types and deal the rest.

 

See: Braves.

 

Yep. Let's have Hendry evaluate these guys correctly and make these types of deals.

 

Have we traded a prospect at his highest value? The only one that I can think of that's even close would be Hee Seop.

[don_kessinger_was_good]

Another reason to trade these guys while their value is highest. 90% of them will never pan out anyway. Keep 3 or 4 who you think are cornerstone -types and deal the rest.

 

See: Braves.

 

Yep. Let's have Hendry evaluate these guys correctly and make these types of deals.

 

Have we traded a prospect at his highest value? The only one that I can think of that's even close would be Hee Seop.

 

I would say we got maximum value out of Brendan Harris and Justin Jones, to allow the Nomar trade to happen. Also, though many have forgotten it, we traded a lefty named Felix Sanchez to Detroit for another minor leaguer, Jon Connolly, and Connolly is clearly the better of the two.

 

Where the Cubs screwed the pooch biggest IMO was with Cruz and Dubois, both if traded at the right time could have brought in a nice haul.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

He's right. How many TOP 100 prospects do we have? Not many. All that supposed talent but nothing to show for it.

 

The strength of our system has been in it's depth of quality prospects, not it's number of top prospects. Therefore, when several are ineffective or have down years, the organizational ranking will dip.

[RynoRules]

Another reason to trade these guys while their value is highest. 90% of them will never pan out anyway. Keep 3 or 4 who you think are cornerstone -types and deal the rest.

 

See: Braves.

 

Yep. Let's have Hendry evaluate these guys correctly and make these types of deals.

 

Have we traded a prospect at his highest value? The only one that I can think of that's even close would be Hee Seop.

 

I would say we got maximum value out of Brendan Harris and Justin Jones, to allow the Nomar trade to happen. Also, though many have forgotten it, we traded a lefty named Felix Sanchez to Detroit for another minor leaguer, Jon Connolly, and Connolly is clearly the better of the two.

 

Where the Cubs screwed the pooch biggest IMO was with Cruz and Dubois, both if traded at the right time could have brought in a nice haul.

 

Agreed, particularly re Cruz.

[abuck1220]

Another reason to trade these guys while their value is highest. 90% of them will never pan out anyway. Keep 3 or 4 who you think are cornerstone -types and deal the rest.

 

See: Braves.

 

that's a novel idea.

 

i'm pretty sure that's what everyone tries to do. problem is, it's not that easy to pawn your crap onto other teams and know which guys are going to be cornerstones. trading the junk and keeping the studs is easier said than done.

[Derwood]

Another reason to trade these guys while their value is highest. 90% of them will never pan out anyway. Keep 3 or 4 who you think are cornerstone -types and deal the rest.

 

See: Braves.

 

Yep. Let's have Hendry evaluate these guys correctly and make these types of deals.

 

Have we traded a prospect at his highest value? The only one that I can think of that's even close would be Hee Seop.

 

Scott Downs for Rondell White

 

Miguel Batista for Henry Rodriguez

 

Harris/Beltran for Nomar

[TXCubsFan]

Another reason to trade these guys while their value is highest. 90% of them will never pan out anyway. Keep 3 or 4 who you think are cornerstone -types and deal the rest.

 

See: Braves.

 

Yep. Let's have Hendry evaluate these guys correctly and make these types of deals.

 

Have we traded a prospect at his highest value? The only one that I can think of that's even close would be Hee Seop.

 

Scott Downs for Rondell White

 

Miguel Batista for Henry Rodriguez

 

Harris/Beltran for Nomar

 

Harris/Beltran for Nomar/Murton! :P

[Diffusion]

Where the Cubs screwed the pooch biggest IMO was with Cruz and Dubois, both if traded at the right time could have brought in a nice haul.

 

When should the Cubs have traded Dubois?

[don_kessinger_was_good]

Where the Cubs screwed the pooch biggest IMO was with Cruz and Dubois, both if traded at the right time could have brought in a nice haul.

 

When should the Cubs have traded Dubois?

 

This time last year. He was coming off a monster season at AAA, and if the Cubs knew they wouldn't/couldn't go to him exclusively as the starting LF, they should have traded him.

 

Same thing with Richard Lewis. He was the Southern League player of the year in 2004, if the Cubs organization didn't have high hopes for him, he should have been moved.

 

This is why I really hope Rich Hill and Ricky Nolasco get traded for other talent this offseason, their value will never be higher and frankly, I don't like the long-term prospects of either compared to alternatives like Guzman, Pinto, Marshall and Marmol. Trade them.

[Outshined_One]

Glad to see the faith everyone has in this organization to develop players. As we have seen in the past, guys like Carlos Zambrano and Mark Prior are nothing but complete and utter failures.

 

How many Top 100 prospects do the Cubs have in their system now? Off the top of my head...

 

No Questions

 

Felix Pie

-Typically ranked in the Top 25 in most Top 100 lists.

 

Mark Pawelek

-Still has only scratched the surface, but is incredibly mature and developed for his age. I'd say Top 50.

 

Few Questions

 

Angel Guzman

-Yeah, yeah, we all know about his injuries by now. His ceiling still remains one of the best among young pitchers in baseball. Top 75 seems apt, given his ceiling.

 

Sean Marshall

-Kinda strange not hearing anyone batting his name around again. He's easily forgotten for whatever reason, but he's produced quite well everywhere he's gone. Top 75, imo.

 

Rich Hill

-If you don't want to count him as a prospect any more, that's fine. But the fact remains that he pretty much blew away all minor league competition and has one of the best curveballs in all of baseball. He was not given much of a chance in the majors, but if he hones his change he could end up a good #2. Top 75.

 

Matt Murton

-Again, you might not count him as a prospect any more, but you can't deny that he's incredibly advanced at the plate and could become a very good everyday LF. Top 75.

 

Could Be In, Could Be Out

 

Donald Veal

-Shhhhhhhhhhhhh... He's my sleeper for next season's breakout pitcher. He could crack the Top 100 on some lists based on his performance down in Boise.

 

Ryan Harvey

-Didn't have the breakout Brian Dopirak-like year everyone expected of him, but still put up solid numbers to go with jaw-dropping power. He still is a five tool guy last I checked and is still young enough to improve on his game in big ways.

 

Ricky Nolasco

-You want production? Check out his numbers the past 2 years down in the Southern League. He might not be an impact guy, but he's a solid workhorse with great control. If he can finally settle into AAA and produce like he has down in AA, he'll have a very nice future.

 

Renyel Pinto

-See: Ricky Nolasco, only replace "great control" with "great stuff he has yet to fully harness".

 

Scott Moore

-He displayed all of the five tools a third baseman needs prominently...except for defense. Apparently he can iron out these issues with time, but we'll see about that one.

 

So, what does the above list signify? Well, the Cubs may not have the combination of depth and impact talent that teams like Anaheim and Los Angeles have nor might they have the sheer number of high quality impact young players that teams like Milwaukee and Seattle have, but the Cubs do have solid depth with some guys who could have good futures in baseball.

 

Yeah, it hurts that guys like Pie, Marshall, and Guzman all battled injuries, but to reject these guys outright by saying the Cubs should just trade them all away because they'll never amount to anything? That's just pure lunacy.

[don_kessinger_was_good]

Yeah, it hurts that guys like Pie, Marshall, and Guzman all battled injuries, but to reject these guys outright by saying the Cubs should just trade them all away because they'll never amount to anything? That's just pure lunacy.

 

Who said Pie, Marshall and Guzman will never amount to anything and should be traded away?

 

1. The players I mentioned at least were Nolasco and Hill.

2. There is a difference between "will never amount to anything" and "do not fit in your team's plans."

3. There is the concept of aberrant outperformance, and the difference between selling high and buying low--and the Cubs' norm, selling low and buying high.

4. Rich Hill will not be a difference maker in a major league rotation, IMO, because he has battled control problems throughout his professional career, and because he relies on one difficult to hit--but difficult to throw for strikes--pitch. His fastball is flat and average. He's a lefty, and that curve when it is on is beautiful--but that signifies a future as a lefty reliever, not a 200 IP starter. So while teams still THINK he can be a 200 IP effective starter, which has more value than a lefty reliever, sell while his value is high and use to get holes filled elsewhere.

5. As for Nolasco, he failed once at AAA. He had a dominant season while repeating AA ball. That does not scream out "future 15 to 20 game winner" to me. Yet, some teams will look at his (admittedly good) 2005 statistics and offer high value for that. Again, I would take advantage of that and sell high.

6. The bottomline is that if you asked me to rank order the top 5 pitchers in the Cubs' minor league system, neither Ricky Nolasco nor Rich Hill would be on that list. If you can't be in the top 5 of the minor leaguers, then you are not a critical component of the team's long-term plans. So you wait for a short-term bout of overperformance from said player, and move him.

7. For the record, my list of top 5 Cub pitchers would be Guzman, Pinto, Pawelek, Marshall and Marmol, because I prefer to focus on projectability than on specific numbers at the low to mid-level of the minor leagues. But that's just me.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

5. As for Nolasco, he failed once at AAA. He had a dominant season while repeating AA ball. That does not scream out "future 15 to 20 game winner" to me. Yet, some teams will look at his (admittedly good) 2005 statistics and offer high value for that. Again, I would take advantage of that and sell high.

6. The bottomline is that if you asked me to rank order the top 5 pitchers in the Cubs' minor league system, neither Ricky Nolasco nor Rich Hill would be on that list. If you can't be in the top 5 of the minor leaguers, then you are not a critical component of the team's long-term plans. So you wait for a short-term bout of overperformance from said player, and move him.

7. For the record, my list of top 5 Cub pitchers would be Guzman, Pinto, Pawelek, Marshall and Marmol, because I prefer to focus on projectability than on specific numbers at the low to mid-level of the minor leagues. But that's just me.

 

Nolasco had a subpar 40 IP in AAA at age 21, then performed great in AA at age 22. Marmol, who's stuff isn't that much better than Nolasco, performed slightly worse than Nolasco in the same league at the same age(Nolasco is several months younger overall, although Marmol is newer to pitching). What makes Nolasco trade fodder and Marmol a keeper?

[Outshined_One]

DKWG, as much as I enjoy battling with ya, that post was directed more towards the sentiment I've seen in this thread and elsewhere around NSBB.

 

Also, I am legitimately giddy about next season thanks to Pawly and Veal.

[CaliforniaRaisin]

Not too many systems don't suffer when the top 4 prospects struggle or are hurt (Dope, Harvey, Guzman, Pie), and a system based on depth will suffer even more than other systems when injury and stagnation strikes. The Cubs system is definitely weakening and probably not top-10 materia anymore, but it's not as weak as some make it out to be.

 

And Outshined, get in line, Donald Veal is already my breakout player for 2006.

[Jehrico]

He's right. How many TOP 100 prospects do we have? Not many. All that supposed talent but nothing to show for it.

 

What all have we gotten in exchange for our talent in the last 3 seasons? Lets see, we've added Zambrano and Prior to the roster three years ago, we traded for Aramis, DLee, Nomar, and Murton as well. We've gotten a pretty decent couple of guys who look like they can contribute to the bullpen for several years to come in Ohman and Weurtz. Cedeno looks like he could be in the top third of all shortstops in MLB in a couple of years.

 

That's 5 all-star caliber players, and another who may be some day added to the team that our farm system has produced in the last three seasons. How many teams have gotten that much from their farm in the last three years?

 

Compare that to the entire decade of the 90s...how many productive players did our farm system net then?

[Jehrico]

Another reason to trade these guys while their value is highest. 90% of them will never pan out anyway. Keep 3 or 4 who you think are cornerstone -types and deal the rest.

 

See: Braves.

 

Yep. Let's have Hendry evaluate these guys correctly and make these types of deals.

 

Have we traded a prospect at his highest value? The only one that I can think of that's even close would be Hee Seop.

 

Scott Downs for Rondell White

 

Miguel Batista for Henry Rodriguez

 

Harris/Beltran for Nomar

 

Harris/Beltran for Nomar/Murton! :P

 

Bobby Hill and junk for Aramis and Lofton!

[Derwood]

and Randall Simon!

[SouthSideRyan]

Ray Sadler went for Simon.