CubsWin

Besides getting someone to play CF in a trade, what internal option is there? Pie is far from ready. He certainly isn't a good lead-off option. I would love for Hendry to improve upon Pierre in CF, but he may have to do so via the trade. Is there someone I'm not thinking of?

Happy St. Petrick's Day, everybody! :lol: :D :) :( :oops: Any excuse to drink more beer, right?

Especially in the low minors the starter/reliever stuff really doesn't matter much since they throw so few innings at a time. I believe Pawelek has have a few relief appearances this year for example, it's all just what they want the pitcher to work on. Since Parker has been doing some starting, I think it may be that they're trying to work out some sort of mechanical issues or pitch grip/location issues ala Aardsma when he first came into our system. I'm not talking about his time in Pro ball. Even though they had 2 freshman get significant starts, Parker didn't crack the rotation at Mizzou. He wasn't amazing statistically and he doesn't have great stuff. He's organizational filler. Yeah, I tend to agree, but by those standards Jeremy Papelbon would also be organizational filler, wouldn't he? Perhaps he is. Maybe I'm wrong, I don't know a lot about him. To my knowledge, he was no great shakes in college either. He is 23, way too old for the league he is currently dominating, was drafted in the 19th round (only two rounds higher than Parker) and has an increasingly famous brother. Yet, he has a bit of a buzz around him right now on this board. How much of that do you think is due to the fact that his brother is blowing up right now?

Completely ignoring CR's disclaimer about predicting the Mesa starter... Is anybody else intrigued by Taylor Parker? He is a little tiny guy (5'10", 155 lbs) but is by far the best pitcher on Mesa so far this season. He is a 21-year-old lefty who was drafted in the 21st round out of Missouri.

I understand what you are saying, but, by definition, if its truly with good reason, then it wouldn't be cynical and pessimistic. :P I don't doubt for a second that you want him to succeed. And I agree that he has been terrible as the stats you've provided show, but he's 21 and playing in a league where most of the guys are older than that. He's got time to improve. You make the case that he needs to improve very well. Its an easy case to make, but I already agree with you on it. Where we differ is that now is the time to give up on him. Yes, the Cubs do have a great track record developing pitchers, which is exactly why they don't need to take one of their guys who has a chance at being a good hitter and put him on the mound. The list of quality pitching prospects for the Cubs never seems to diminish very much even with trades and injuries. The Cubs might as well stick to their guns with Harvey and keep him hitting. They can bring in better instructors, give him a different coach, but don't put him on the hill. That would be a wasteful move and, at this early stage, one motivated by panic, as well.

He's also 14-37 in his last 10 games with 15 RBIs. Does this ten-game stretch mean anything? No. But I think the talk of trying him at pitcher is a bit premature. Clearly he has things to learn, but he's a 21-year-old playing at High-A. Are we right to expect more from a 5th pick in the draft? Absolutely. But he's still got time to figure it out. He's supposed to have the athleticism. Let's see what happens the rest of this year. I have no problem with Harvey starting next season at Daytona if he continues to struggle the rest of this year. He's got an uphill climb in front of him, but I, for one, am willing to see if he can climb it before trying him on the hill. That sounds a bit cynical this early in his career. Which is why I said in my post that I'm hoping its a sign of things to come, BUT I'm afraid it's not. Obviously, Harvey has a lot of work to do. I just wanted to post some good news about Harvey for once in the past couple years. I can't find any place in my post about how Harvey still has plenty of time to figure it out where it can be accurately construed that I am criticizing what you wrote. I saw that you wrote, "but I'm afraid its not". So when I wrote that the 10-game stretch didn't mean anything, I was agreeing with you. Why would you think that I was disagreeing with or criticizing your post? I'm glad that Harvey has had a good stretch. I hope that he will continue with it. I think the people who are calling for him to give up trying to be a hitter are over-reacting but I understand their points. All I'm saying is he can still do this.

He's also 14-37 in his last 10 games with 15 RBIs. Does this ten-game stretch mean anything? No. But I think the talk of trying him at pitcher is a bit premature. Clearly he has things to learn, but he's a 21-year-old playing at High-A. Are we right to expect more from a 5th pick in the draft? Absolutely. But he's still got time to figure it out. He's supposed to have the athleticism. Let's see what happens the rest of this year. I have no problem with Harvey starting next season at Daytona if he continues to struggle the rest of this year. He's got an uphill climb in front of him, but I, for one, am willing to see if he can climb it before trying him on the hill. That sounds a bit cynical this early in his career.

Being 23 years old, albeit a just-turned 23, it would be nice to see what Jeremy can do at a more age appropriate level. The guy has allowed 4 hits over 17 innings while striking out 19 and walking only 4. Its time for him to move, too. Still, dominating the Northwest League aint bad for a 19th round selection no matter what age he is...

Good work, Brian. But you forgot the meat tray, Wellemeyer and possibly some others that I too am forgetting at the moment. :wink:

Don't look now, but here comes Tyler Colvin. Over his last 4 games, he is batting .400 (6-for-15), with 4 runs scored, 2 doubles, 1 homer and 6 batted in. Let's see if he can keep it up. If so, perhaps he follows Samardzjia to Peoria in a couple of weeks.

I realize that its a matter of time on Hill, and that he is very likely to join the team within two weeks time. I believe Maddux will be traded, but maybe not until the deadline. But with Prior on the DL until close to the deadline, I don't see why Hill wasn't brought up instead of Theriot. The only reason I can possibly think of to have Rusch in the rotation right now is if he starts pitching well and showcases himself for a trade before the deadline. But how likely is that. Not very. Perhaps the biggest reason why Hill isn't in the majors right now is that Rothschild and Baker don't like his mental makeup and don't trust him. If they are vetoing a move to bring Hill up, I say fire 'em. Rich Hill clearly belongs in the majors. If he has a mental block around pitching at the big league level, the best thing for him is an extended period of uninterrupted time at the big league level to work through it. After Zambrano and Prior, Hill may be the Cubs best starter, but we won't know for sure unless he is brought up. Keeping him at AAA can't get any more pointless than it is right now.

Tyler Colvin has strung together two good games for the first time all season going 3-for-7, with 2 doubles, 1 HR, 4 RBI and 2 BBs with no Ks. Maybe he's finally adjusting to wood bats and NWL pitching. We'll see...

Just an excerpt. If you want to read the rest, here's the link...

if the cubs produced someone the caliber of johnson or soriano, i'd be doing backflips of glee. Yeah, I'm not Soriano fan, but if the Cubs produced a guy like that I'd have a lot less to complain about. Besides, just saying that it's been a while since Jeter and Posada doesn't mean much. They did produce those guys just 10 years ago, and they are still playing and producing for the team. The Cubs have gone much much longer since developing just one similar player, let alone two. Take Soriano, Johnson, Jeter and Posada, and you've got 4 guys in 10 years that blow away anything the Cubs could put together the 12 years MacPhail and Hendry have been in charge. The point is the relationship between team revenue and production of all-star caliber position players is negligible. It likely influences it, but not to the point of control. I don't know if I would be doing backflips either, but, yes, most definitely we would have less to complain about if the Cubs had been able to produce players like Cano and Soriano. Besides the point, but clearly an accurate statement.

What is it with the Cubs and producing successful pitching prospects? As much as they struggle to produce succesful position players, they seemingly don't even have to try to produce successful pitching prospects. The 20-year-old Sean Gallagher is at AA now and went 8-1, 2.33 while averaging 6 innings per start, striking out 111 while walking 38 for a WHIP of 1.26 in the first half. The 21-year-old southpaw Donald Veal is now at High-A and has gone 6-3, 2.14 averaging 5 1/2 innings over 17 starts striking out 99 while walking 48 for a WHIP of just 1.13. Does he have some control issues? Yes. But he has also been very difficult to hit. And that's just the tip of the iceberg. Marmol has already been called up. Marshall was supposed to start this season in AA. Angel Guzman continues to get ready in Iowa. Rich Hill is making a mockery of AAA hitters again this year with consistency. But then there is Randy Wells. Who came out of nowhere to dominate AA hitters and is now starting to do the same in AAA. Juan Mateo is just 23 and his numbers at AA (2.50 ERA, 1.12 WHIP) aren't too shabby. And what about the 6'7" lefty Chris Shaver who has put up a 2.20 ERA with a 1.22 WHIP in the first half also at AA. Jae Kuk Ryu, Scott Taylor and lets not forget Mark Pawelek. Mark Holliman, a 3rd rounder last year, has been pretty darn good at Daytona. The 20-year-old Todd Blackford started the season terribly, but has been really good over the last two months. He has the frame to add some velocity and the guy can induce groundball outs pretty consistently already. The Cubs traded away some really good pitching prospects to get Juan Pierre, but do they really miss them? They've got so many more in the pipeline. How do they do it? Its just as mind-boggling as why they can't produce an all-star position prospect.

But to answer the question originally posed, are there any position players worth a darn right now? No, not at the moment, but that can change quickly. Nobody is on fire, red hot at the moment. But several have the ability to become that way very quickly. Pie started the season that way but is struggling right now. But that doesn't mean that we should lose faith in him. There is a lot of evidence suggesting that he will turn it on again at some point. And he has plenty of time. Brian Dopirak injured his foot in April and reports are that he can't generate any power right now. But that doesn't mean he never will. He was impressive while playing with the Cubs during spring training. He had such an amazing year in '04 that he vaulted to the top of many people's prospect list. Its not like that never happened. It just isn't happening right now. Can it happen again for him? Yes. Will it? That's why they play the games. He is also just 22 years old and playing at AA. Jonathon Mota just turned 19 a month ago. He played and hit well enough to get promoted to High-A Daytona and is putting up similar numbers there as he did in Peoria. He is a really young, apparently slick fielding SS, so he doesn't have any power at this point, but he is hitting .281 on the year so far. Might he be a position player worth a darn? Yes. Its just too early to tell. Might Patterson be worth a darn? Yes. I'd like to see the Cubs bring him up for the 2nd half of this year and trade Todd Walker, but I highly doubt they'll give up on this season like I would. The aforementioned Reed? Perhaps. But he is clearly not a complete hitter right now. So I think the answer is no, at the moment, there are no position-prospect sure things firing on all cylinders in the Cubs system.

No, it's primarily a problem of low and mid-market clubs who are hampered by financial concerns. The Cubs are in the same boat as KC, Cincinnatti, Pittsburgh, and Tampa. But, by the same token the Cubs have focused on pitching prospects over the last decade with their high draft picks. Even so their track record is pretty piss poor. Yah, Tampa is really having trouble developing position players. I don't think financial concerns matter much in developing players other than signability issues. What great position player have the Yankees produced lately? Robinson Cano? Its been a while since guys like Jeter and Posada. If money equals position player prospects, how do you explain the lack of guys coming out of the Yankees organization? How's Dioner Navarro turning out? Is Nick Johnson an all-star? Soriano's got some talent and he's had a great first half, but his career numbers paint a more complete picture. And the Red Sox have really been pumping out the position player all-stars. Varitek came from Seattle. Ramirez from Cleveland. Ortiz from Minnesota. Damon, now on the Yanks, came from KC. There is Kevin Youklis who is doing pretty darn good this year and looks like a good one, but thats just one. Certainly with all that money the Red Sox can produce more than just one good position prospect? There's Freddy Sanchez, but he turned 28 before putting up really good numbers. Who's to say that Cedeno won't have a season like Sanchez is having this year when he turns 28? I think we can safely say that money can influence the level of prospects a team can get, but it doesn't add up dollar for dollar. Cedeno is pretty good all around. He still has some learning to do, thats for sure. Pie's future is still pretty darn bright. EPatt is getting it done at AA pretty well. Scott Moore has got a problem with strikeouts, but he has certainly answered a lot of the questions that plagued him before coming to the Cubs, suggesting that maybe Cubs instructors have helped in his case. They need to help him some more before he can have an impact at the major league level, but he is still just 22. There are others worth mentioning, but all in all, it is a pretty mediocre bunch right now. However, thats not to say that there aren't several from this current group who have a shot to be pretty good to great major leaguers.

You and many others have made similar accusations about me in the past. But the fact is I've been right. I know ineptitude when I see it. I'm not just look at worst case scenario. Take Ryan Harvey for instance. His entire career path has bordered on worst case scenario so far. At some point, you have to narrow the range between worst case and best case, and come up with a realistic case that fits the bill. Almost every one of these guys has disappointed immensely. No position player has shot up the rankings. None of them are flirting with best of the best status around the league. None of them are doing anything special. The excuse that all prospects are a big gamble doesn't hold any water. We aren't talking about the Cubs having the same woes as everybody else. For one, they have more resources than most other organizations. But they've been pretty much THE worst organization at developing position players for nearly 2 decades. That's not run-of-the-mill bad luck with prospects. That's a pretty clear indictment of their ability to draft, sign and develop position players. You don't have to have a negative bias against the Cubs to have a very negative view against their position playing prospects. You were being excessively negative. A couple have futures as bench players, with maybe some becoming okay major leaguers elsewhere? That's hyperbole and you know it. I don't disagree that there is reason to doubt the Cubs ability to identify, draft and develop great position players. I also don't disagree that we shouldn't be too excited about the current crop in general. But, on a message board, all you have to go on are the poster's words, and your words, Goony, were indefensibly negative. You may not have meant them exactly the way you wrote them. You may have just been being colorful in your description of the mediocre state of the current crop of position prospects, but there really is no way for me to know that, so I take you at your word and respond accordingly. I think it is very clear that the words you chose were unbalanced to the negative.

I find this view very unbalanced toward the negative. Goony is only considering the worst case scenario of these players and only seeing them coming true. I think it is very possible that some of these position players hit as really good players. And what Goony said about being able to make a lot of money betting against any of these Cub prospects ever making it can be said about almost every prospect in the minors. Struggling to produce the next great position player isn't exclusively a Cubs problem.

I agree. I, too, would rather see bets like this instead of overpaying for mediocrity and ineptitude, though thats not saying much. Who wouldn't? That said, comparing contracts is a tricky proposal. Unfortunately, a player's specific contract isn't always, or even often, determined by his worth as a player, it is determined by the economics of the situation meaning the team's perceived need for a specific kind of player, how much money that team has to spend at the time, the player's willingness to sign with that team, etc. Only one factor determining the dollar amount a player makes is his level of performance. So Huseby's motivation to go to Auburn and not really wanting to sign with a big league club unless he got 1st round money had a lot to do with the money he got. Factor in that Wilken liked what he saw when scouting him this spring, thought he was worth the gamble and had the money to spend and it all adds up. Miller, on the other hand, had completely different market forces leading up to his contract. Thus, comparing the two or justifying one using the other is problematic because they really weren't created on a level playing field. I agree with your conclusion, but the method used to get there is a slippery one. I think you have to take each contract on its own terms to determine whether someone was overpaid or not. In the case of Huseby, there were more than the usual amount of factors at play. The fact that he was drafted in the 11th round had more to do with his recent injury, the fact that he wasn't heavily scouted leading up to the draft due to that injury, his committment to Auburn and his belief that if he were allowed to play college ball that he would eventually wind up a 1st round selection. When you factor in the Cubs situation of not having a 2nd, 3rd or 4th round selection, Wilken scouting him and liking what he saw and the Cubs being a rather wealthy organization to start with, the contract appears to be a gamble worth taking.

So after learning what we have learned about Huseby, does anyone still consider this signing shocking? I'm not saying they should or shouldn't, just asking. It seems like a decent gamble to me considering their lack of higher round selections. Is that the consensus or no?

His walks are up too. Maybe they are messing with him.

I think that probably means that he hasn't had a big showing this year.

Incredible work, kc. Where did you get that chart? You didn't make that, did you? Wow.

I agree that there is reason for concern, but unless there is a metric that shows how many of those fly ball outs were hit deep, then being a flyball pitcher doesn't necessarily equate to giving up a lot of HRs. They're not getting a lot of hits off of him and they are swinging and missing a lot, so maybe they aren't getting great wood on a lot of those flyballs, I don't know. Would I be happier if he threw more groundballs? Of course. Especially given the configuration of Wrigley Field, but, whereas flyballs are definite concern, the stats I think carry more weight here are H/IP and K/IP. Both are looking real good. Clearly he needs to improve his control and gain some sink on his pitches to cause more groundballs, but if he can do that over the next 2 1/2 seasons, the Cubs will have one exciting 24-year-old lefty power pitcher with stuff that makes hitters miss on their hands.