goonys evil twin

Simple. Since Andy took over the Cubs have focused on using high round picks on pitching. The Cubs have used their top picks for pitching 8X to only 3X for hitters. If you include the extra 1st round picks of a couple years ago you add more pitchers (Hagerty, Blasko and Clanton). That's 11 to 3. The system HAS produced Hinske (who spent the majority of his games in the Cubs system) and Cedeno. Murton has also blossomed as a Cub. Other players (Choi, Harris and Hill) were dealt for some very good players (Lee Nomar, and Ramirez). The Cubs believe that you can always use more pitching (Hill, Guzman and Marshall are getting ready for the call) and that you can trade pitching for hitting (Mitre, Nolasco and Pinto for Pierre). Regardless of whether you agree with their philosophies it would be silly to expect ice cream from a butter churn. Yep. The Cubs can't develop position prospects because they focus so heavily on pitchers, and when they do go with hitters, they overwhelmingly favor the toolsy, often high school age player over a lower ceiling but greater chance of reaching it type of player. And, they can't develop them worth a crap (probably due to both a bad organizational philosophy, and weak coaching). They keep trying to find the next Vlad Guerrero, diamond in the rough, prospect, and never even think of just signing that player when he is proven, available and still young enough to be great for a considerable length of time.

Don't forget Rusch will be given a job just because he's a veteran lefty. So it's probably just 2 spots to fill.

I don't think public pressure would have any impact. First off, the vast majority of Cubs fans don't give a crap about prospects, and think "true leadoff man" really was the biggest need. So they view the proven Pierre as fantastic for the team. Hendry is not going to hold Pie down. He's either going to trade him, or find room. But the public won't determine the plan. If the Cubs feel the public needs to be swayed one way or another, they'll just get the PR machine to sell the story.

It's easy to say 1 WS would be enough for the rest of your lives. But if they win this year, I won't dismiss failure as inevitable and acceptable until I die. If they win this year and never again, then that means my kids (who aren't close to be conceived yet, let alone born) won't ever see them win, and that would not be acceptable. I'd probably give them the 5 year grace period, but I can't see much more than that. The Bears won in 85/86, the first and only time in my life, so far. But I didn't wait until 90/91 to start being upset with their failure to follow through with another championship, let alone getting close. And I wouldn't give the Cubs more leeway just because of their pathetic history. To me, that's akin to saying you have to be happy with the success of the MacPhail/Hendry era because it's been greater than any other era the Cubs have had since I was born. Lowered expectations is not my thing.

Could you live with Pierre if Pie is traded for a good RF bat? How good? Let's say on the level of Abreu/Dunn Probably. I'm thinking Pierre is going to have a modestly good year. But with the momentum in baseball swinging toward the overvaluation of this type of player (see all the BS about how great Podsednik was this year), he could very well be very overpaid by next season, and Jim could easily be the GM who mistakenly signs him to that contract.

Why does everyone keep saying we have Jones for 3 years. Because he has a three-year contract. While it is likely that he'll be traded, we still have him signed for three years, and we aren't going to go out and get someone else as long as he's under contract to the Cubs, barring injury or piss-poor play. Why would anyone say the Cubs don't have Jones for 3 years? He signed a 3 year contract. He is not likely to be traded. He is exactly the type of player Jim Hendry likes, and Jim is not quick to admit mistakes and get rid of failures. Jones could repeat his career numbers (ie, suck as a RF) and Jim would be ecstatic, and have no desire to trade him. Jones is a Cub, it sucks, but we have to get used to it. Quit pretending he's a likely trade chip in one year.

Those refs were brutal on many calls. But I'm not sure they determined the outcome. They made it much easier for Pittsburgh to seal the deal, but they may have won without all the help anyway, because Holgrem crapped the bed, repeatedly.

It doesn't matter if Sisco is not a position players. The motivation of all prospects matters. In 10 years the Cubs have developed few prospects, even if you just look at pitchers. They've had 3 top notch guys, but that doesn't say much about their ability to motivate guys, which is the discussion. It looks to me that outside of elite pitchers, they can't develop squat. And those elite pitchers don't need much motivation. Why the heck are people so afraid to admit the Cubs management might be lacking?

You can't include either. Willis spent a year + in Florida's system before making it. You can't give the Cubs credit for developing and motivating him into the majors. Same with Lohse, who spent more time in Minny's system than the Cubs. If you are claiming the Cubs can't be blamed for being poor motivators of other prospects, you can't use as support prospects who left the system early and found success in another system before their call-up.

Don't pretend any new buyer wouldn't be interested in a profit. How can their failures be about money when they spend a lot more than most? They don't spend as much as the biggest spenders, but they spend as much, or more, than most of the consistently good teams. Look no further than Houston and STL, who each spend less than the Cubs and each outproduce. It can't be about money. At least, it's mostly not about the money. It's obviously a management problem, otherwise the Cubs wouldn't be consistently trailing Anaheim, Oakland, Houston, St. Louis, Minnesota and others.

Who are all these prospects? Wood, Prior, Zambrano, Farnsworth, Wuertz, Ohman.............. Quevedo bombed, Cruz fizzled, Welly and Leicester are in limbo. Have they really brought up that many that stuck? 6 guys in 10 years who they are responsible for developing and bringing into the game, who are still enjoying some success in the league. Am I missing somebody? And why should we only talk about pitchers, both hitters and pitchers matter. Overall the Cubs aren't good at developing prospects. Maybe their motivation techniques are part of the problem. Who knows. What we do know is they obviously aren't doing anything particularly great in that area.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/writers/jon_weisman/02/03/defense.metrics/index.html

I don't get what that has to do with anything. Different guys need different motivations, and I'm not sure any of the guys they have called up so far needed any outside motivation. And it's not like the Cubs have a good track record developing prospects, so they cannot be assumed to employ the best motivational techniques.

If the only thing you can do to motivate a guy is to not protect him, you probably aren't any good at motivating people. Or Sisco is unresponsive to that type of motivation. If you only use one type, it's your own fault. Every sports organization has to deal with a wide range of motivationals tools for their many different athletes.

For which team is pitching not the key? True, but the Cubs' pitching stands out for two reasons. 1) They have an extremely wide range of ceiling and floor, with an equally wide range of likelihood of reaching either. 2) They have a weak offense that won't be able to make up for slip-ups in the rotation. The best hitting teams can withstand the pitching problems. Other teams rely on pitching as well. And other teams have weak offenses. But few have the chance to be as good as the Cubs good be if all goes well.

Take out Rusch and that would be very good if healthy. Cards Cubs Brewers Astros Pirates Reds

If the only thing you can do to motivate a guy is to not protect him, you probably aren't any good at motivating people.

There is a very, very, very large difference between thinking a guy could at some time make it in the bigs, and keeping him on your roster every day of the season. If somebody drafted Ronny, he never would have had the improved year at AA, because he would have been a bench guy in the majors doing nothing. Ronny 2006 is not Ronny 2006 if he had to spend the year on a bench. He needed that time to develop in the minors. I agree they did a great job apparantly predicting his improvement. But then again, it could have easily been more to do with no other worthy candidates than them insisting on putting him on the roster.

Actually it does. You just refuse to think about it. And you completely misrepresented what the other poster wrote. But then again, you've been doing that ever since you started posting, so it shouldn't surprise me by now.

Weird, that has nothing to do with what he wrote.

Do you have the right thread? Also, back on topic: Who do you guys think we should platoon Jones with against lefties? Restovich? Mabry? Grissom? Hairston? Restovich is the only one who has a chance of being a decent platoon option, but I'm not holding out much hope considering he doesn't really fit the profile the Cubs are apparantly demanding.

The one Chicago team I don't care about is the Bulls. I got next to no enjoyment out of their success, other than good excuses for parties. I have a theory that their astronomical success actually was a hindrance to other Chicago teams because fans weren't that anxious to demand championships from the other teams. Of course, the Bears, Blackhawks and Cubs probably would have all sucked either way, but I like to comfort myself with these stupid theories.

The difference is guys like Duque, Contreras, Miller, Williamson and Dempster have high upside. I like the moves Hendry made with the actual moderate risk high reward guys. Simontacchi, however, is low reward. If all goes well, he'll be a dime a dozen mediocrity. I am neither in favor or strongly against this move. It's largely meaningless. And it does not offer a chance for high reward.

I keep reading this. Who exactly are we going to trade Jones to? Snood, I'm not singling you out on this, just using your post as an example. Well, the Cubs weren't the only team interested in signing him. To me, that implies other teams value him somewhat. If we ate some of the salary, I don't see why it would be so hard to trade him. I'm not suggesting we'd get much back for him. I'm just saying it's not like we'd be trying to move a Mo Vaughn contract. Worse players than Jacque Jones have been traded before. it's not unrealistic to think it could happen again. Jim Hendry didn't sign Jones to trade him down the road. He likes Jones. Jones fits the exact stereotype of a "Jim Hendry guy". Could they trade him? Obviously everybody can be traded. If Hundley, Sosa and ARod can be traded, despite their seemingly crazy contract situations and varied level of performance expectations, the Jones can be traded. But you can't assuage the grief surrounding his presence on the team (and likely in the middle of the lineup) by saying he might be tradable in a year. Hendry wants him on the team.

Your logic is off. You have a 1 in 200 million chance of that "high reward" buying a lottery ticket. It's significantly less when talking about guys like Dempster, Williamson, etc But probably the same when talking about Simontacchi.