UK1679666180

Not to throw this off target but what about Dave Martinez (while on the subject of former cubs)? Him being the shadow of Joe down in TB merits looking into him more than Sandberg.

Use proper context or at least the entire quote. I don't understand how the remainder of your quote makes a difference. By your own admission, he appears unaware of the differences between HS and college. I'm to believe that he honestly thought McCracken was saying HS players can't be scouted? He's likely looking at it as the ability to be scouted (graded in the present). Voros was looking at it more in terms of grading in the future. Hughes likely knows of the risks yet still feels confident his in and scouts' abilities to provide a future grade as well. I think that scenario is more likely than him not knowing the different risks of selecting a HS arm over a college arm. His opinion is probably that of going BPA rather than putting much weight on the increased risks of a HS arm. Scouts aren't worried losing their jobs and becoming unemployed. They don't like the increased use of computers, scheduling, tests, etc. It's becoming more scientific and many are afraid of change to begin with and while technology is a good thing, for those who are opposed to change are going to resist. But, you will still need the same amount if not more scouts at the parks.

Scouts don't feel threatened about their jobs, they feel threatened about how their jobs are going to evolve or devolve.

If that's the case as far the developmental staff only using stats, Marmol and Wells wouldve been released as no hit catchers and Lake would not have made it past Peoria. That is not even close to what he said, you should know that. I took that completely wrong, for that I apologize. I do agree with Hughes being well behind the times as far as stats. Although, he was the primary scout as far as Fukudome and Pena.

If that's the case as far the developmental staff only using stats, Marmol and Wells wouldve been released as no hit catchers and Lake would not have made it past Peoria.

Use proper context or at least the entire quote.

The Hellicksons of the world are few and far between. He was a college junior on the mound when he was junior in HS as far as how he pitched. That's his point. No. With the ceiling/raw ability for those guys who have the stuff and command of 3 pitches, you're typically not going to find those guys for less. The only reason why Hellickson wasn't drafted higher was b/c he was considered a tough sign and he was undersized with a slightly above FB. It's like Giolito, he's the best HS player in the draft from what I've heard. You're not going to pry someone away like that from UCLA without paying him. The other HS arms are more max effort and raw with their secondary stuff. Giolito has the ability and polish to pitch in the majors at 21 (barring injury). It can't be an either or as far as risk/signability. You either have to overpay for a pick with those assets or not draft him. Edit: Ok, you'd be willing to overspend for someone like that which makes sense.

The Hellicksons of the world are few and far between. He was a college junior on the mound when he was junior in HS as far as how he pitched.

Why would you draft a HS arm earlier and not later in the 1st?

If you were a scouting director of a smaller market club, would you draft a HS pitcher in the 1st? With all things being equal, probably not. They are, on average, going to cost more to sign away from a college commitment and take more resources to develop. They are also more likely to bust than a polished college kid. It doesn't seem like a good gamble. I disagree, you have to have faith in your developmental staff. If he's projected as a 1st rounder out of HS, you to have assume that the 3 years of pro baseball will allow him to develop more compared to 3 years at schools even like UNC, SC, or Vandy. It does give 3 more years of waiting as far as injury or complete breakdown but you can't draft or scout based on fear. There are too many successful HS pitching prospects to eliminate all of them b/c of the ones that bust. It's probably why I agree with Hughes and see his angle given he is basically defending drafting HS arms regardless of market size. It does appear he is unaware of the differences of HS vs. college, although I still think he was looking at it as times seen and being able to OFP him rather whether or not there is a greater risk.

Heh.

If you were a scouting director of a smaller market club, would you draft a HS pitcher in the 1st?

FINALLY!!! When people can't grasp scouting is and will be predom. Subjective, that is their lack of knowledge on scouting.

So after *decades* in major league organizations, his primary accomplishments are a brief run of good drafts with the Expos and being a part of a 92-win, one-off team. Forgive me for not being overwhelmed with his resume. No, he spent many years as an area scout before working his way up to scouting director and then assistant GM. He worked up from a part-time scout to Scouting Dir. and Assistant GM. His recognition as one of the 10 scouts of the 20th century by Baseball America is plenty for me.

I can't give him a lot of leeway on interpreting that one. He didn't say they weren't an unknown, he was responding to McCracken stating HS players were more of an unknown given the physical maturity peaks. I don't believe they are unknown either, in the literal sense either, scouts know enough about a HS player to draft him, therefore it is not unknown, while McCracken was speaking of projection. There's less odds of them making it to the majors, but that risk is worth the 3 season of the best instructional baseball they will get compared to college.

Leiter, Alou, Kevin Brown, Nen, Grissom, Floyd, etc. He was pivotal in the success of the Expos and Marlins of the 90s. If you don't remember how good the Spos were, look it up. I'm confused, are these players he scouted? Because they came from disparate organizations in the minors and were acquired by the GM in Florida, which he was not. Those Expos teams were nice. Floyd and Alou were nice first-rounders, but I don't know that it took scouting genius to find them. The best player on those teams, Larry Walker, predated Hughes' run as scouting director by two years. Nor did the two key rotation pitchers come from the minors. It looks to me like he just had two or three draft picks that turned out well and happened to be in the organization at the same time as a bunch of other talent was acquired, thus cementing his reputation. Scouted, signed, and recommended, he was with Florida and Montreal for each of their runs. If 1st rounders were easy, the Cubs would not be where they are. So he is getting credit for saying "Hey Florida and Montreal, you should sign some good MLB players"? Most of these guys weren't exactly diamonds in the rough. And again: The Florida organization wasn't all that good while he was there. Florida did not have a "run." They acquired good players while there, granted b/c of payroll limitations, they could not maintain it. If he is doing pro coverage and he recommends guys they should sign and help the team, that is his job. If it was that easy, every team would be perfect with FA signees. God bless fantasy baseball.

It was in the context of teams unwilling to draft HS pitchers b/c of injury possibility being increased. I'm sure he knows the differences between the two in both development and arm structure but he would draft a HS arm in the 1st unlike some clubs. I'm not sure at all that he knows that. He seemed to be saying that if you scout a guy properly, the risk is identical, because that's what scouts do. His response to the assertion that high school pitchers get hurt more was "college pitchers don't get hurt?" That's a dumb argument. Sure, he knows that. That's scouting 101. Let me ask you, would you want the Cubs to take a chance and draft a HS pitcher knowing the developmental and injury risks? His response was geared towards the teams who don't draft HS pitchers b/c of that risk and mentioned "college pitchers don't risk) it was a snide yet true remark.

Leiter, Alou, Kevin Brown, Nen, Grissom, Floyd, etc. He was pivotal in the success of the Expos and Marlins of the 90s. If you don't remember how good the Spos were, look it up. I'm confused, are these players he scouted? Because they came from disparate organizations in the minors and were acquired by the GM in Florida, which he was not. Those Expos teams were nice. Floyd and Alou were nice first-rounders, but I don't know that it took scouting genius to find them. The best player on those teams, Larry Walker, predated Hughes' run as scouting director by two years. Nor did the two key rotation pitchers come from the minors. It looks to me like he just had two or three draft picks that turned out well and happened to be in the organization at the same time as a bunch of other talent was acquired, thus cementing his reputation. Scouted, signed, and recommended, he was with Florida and Montreal for each of their runs. If 1st rounders were easy, the Cubs would not be where they are.

Leiter, Alou, Kevin Brown, Nen, Grissom, Floyd, etc. He was pivotal in the success of the Expos and Marlins of the 90s. If you don't remember how good the Spos were, look it up. I'm confused, are these players he scouted? Because they came from disparate organizations in the minors and were acquired by the GM in Florida, which he was not. Those Expos teams were nice. Floyd and Alou were nice first-rounders, but I don't know that it took scouting genius to find them. The best player on those teams, Larry Walker, predated Hughes' run as scouting director by two years. Nor did the two key rotation pitchers come from the minors. It looks to me like he just had two or three draft picks that turned out well and happened to be in the organization at the same time as a bunch of other talent was acquired, thus cementing his reputation. Scouted, signed, and recommended, he was with Florida and Montreal for each of their runs. If 1st rounders were easy, the Cubs would not be where they are.

Leiter, Alou, Kevin Brown, Nen, Grissom, Floyd, etc. He was pivotal in the success of the Expos and Marlins of the 90s. If you don't remember how good the Spos were, look it up.

It was in the context of teams unwilling to draft HS pitchers b/c of injury possibility being increased. I'm sure he knows the differences between the two in both development and arm structure but he would draft a HS arm in the 1st unlike some clubs.

How do we objectively declare that Hughes was the one who had the success? By the talent he was credited and the success of the organization/farm systems. To SSR: Its unfortunate it ended like this for him and that people will remember him more for that one article than his body of work, not that I'm disappointed to see him gone. In the right role (in Det) he could be of use. again, UK, that interview was a summary of his body of work. That's one of the dumber things you've said. You can still be a very good talent evaluator and have those opinions, although I disagree with most of what he said in that interview, he has a history of very good talent evaluation by all accounts.

How do we objectively declare that Hughes was the one who had the success? By the talent he was credited and the success of the organization/farm systems. To SSR: Its unfortunate it ended like this for him and that people will remember him more for that one article than his body of work, not that I'm disappointed to see him gone. In the right role (in Det) he could be of use.

Yes, if someone else had exposed themselves as ignorant and dismissive at parts of player evaluation, or if Hughes hadn't done those things, then the opinions would be different. Opinions of the Cubs would also likely be different if they currently had 95 wins too. How did have success prior to the Cubs? I'm sure those same traits will still there. Then the real question is, did the development game change that much the past 10 years, or did his skills change that much? The Cubs have had such little success from within in recent history that it's a wonder Hughes has lasted this long. Hughes had more success under Dombrowski than Hendry.

Hendry didn't create anything. That was how it was done before he took the job. It was a philosophy that Hughes himself lauded and preferred to work under. He really sucked at his job and now he is gone. Hendry created the team's approach. It is a philosophy and a relationship with Hendry he felt comfortable with. Hendry learned as much from Dombrowski as Hughes.