Hairyducked Idiot

So long as the MLB postseason splits the Wild Card (which is awesome) and insists that all substantive tiebreaks be decided with additional games (which is also awesome), the potential for awesomeness is awesome. 2013 scenario. Cubs, Cardinals and Brewers all finish 90-72, in a three-way tie for the division. Additionally, the Braves finish 90-72, and the two wild card spots have to come from these four teams as well. Tiebreak Day 1: Brewers at Cardinals, Cardinals win, Brewers dumped down to WC tiebreaker Tiebreak Day 2: Cubs at Cardinals, Cubs win, secure divisional title, Cardinals dumped down to WC tiebreaker Tiebreak Day 3: Brewers at Cardinals, Cardinals win, secure WC spot Tiebreak Day 4: Braves at Brewers, Brewers win, secure WC spot Tiebreak Day 5: The Wild Card Showdown, Brewers at Cardinals (for the third time in five days), Cardinals win and secure WC and advance to the regular postseason. Then the Cubs and Cardinals meet up again in the NLCS.

Until the second half of next season, when we again dump 40% of the rotation and replace it with organizational filler. But you are right. As bad as the Cubs are, they could improve quickly because of the sheer number of terrible, below-replacement performances they've gotten.

Vitters BB! Losing out would mean tying the franchise record for losses. I kind of want this to happen to maybe shame them into trying to avoid something similar next season.

And then trade Garza, Shields, and Sanchez at the deadline to get more prospects and start all over again. :lol: Don't be silly. Epstein only promised we'd trade 40% of the rotation next year.

I mentioned two who did turn out worth a little. That's kind of my point. You want to have about dozen of these guys in your system all the time because 1 or 2 will turn into Ryan Theriot or Darwin Barney, but I don't see anything in any of those guys that puts them beyond that, except *maybe* Torreyes who is an fascinating mix of strengths and weaknesses. How does that refute my point that the guys you listed were "developed" in an organization with an embarrassingly bad approach to player development, which is not the case with the current Chicago Cubs? It's a valid point, so I wasn't trying to refute it.

Just noticed that if the Cubs lose out, they can still tie the franchise record for losses. The Cubs finished 59-103 in 1966 and 1962, the only two times they have ever lost 100 games. They were above .500 the next year both times.

I think "worthlessness" is a mischaracterization of what I said, but since you asked nicely, yes, I can promise that.

I mentioned two who did turn out worth a little. That's kind of my point. You want to have about dozen of these guys in your system all the time because 1 or 2 will turn into Ryan Theriot or Darwin Barney, but I don't see anything in any of those guys that puts them beyond that, except *maybe* Torreyes who is an fascinating mix of strengths and weaknesses.

Derp, I was thinking "Watkins, Torreyes, Amaya" and leaving out Bruno. Bruno was a 7th-rounder who put up a .425 BABIP as a 21-year-old in Boise. What am I supposed to like?

I know I've leaned pretty heavily on this link before, but I do love it: http://www.royalsreview.com/2011/2/14/1992424/success-and-failure-rates-of-top-mlb-prospects#storyjump In order for those three guys to combine for a 50% chance of being 2.5+ WAR players (which is probably a bit below All-Star level, but we'll go with it), they'd need to each be about a 20% chance of reaching that level. According to the link above, a 20% or better chance of becoming a 2.5+ WAR player is reserved for position prospects in the top 50-75 of all of baseball. I don't see any of those three in that range.

And by Peoria, I mean Kane County.

I don't see .281 with 9 HRs as above-average hit-tool and pop. Those look like average and below-average to me. Torreyes' hit tool is obviously above average (or better), but he hit 6 home runs this year. Amaya's slash line is exciting, but it's still Boise. Show me something in Peoria and maybe we'll talk. Throwing together a bunch of guys like this and assuming that one of them has to pan out to fill the position just never seems to work. It's David Kelton/Brendan Harris/Iforgetthethirdguy all over again. All-Star looks way, way too high to me. I like Torreyes, and I don't dislike the other two, but they all strike me as "these guys have a chance to be useful MLB players someday" types of prospects, hence the "generic" label. I wouldn't put any of them at more than maybe a 20% chance to become a long-term starter in MLB. Are these guys really better prospects than the Eric Pattersons of the world? The Ronny Cedenos? Ryan Flaherty? DJ LeMahieu? Nate Frese? Jose Nieves? They all look cut from the same cloth to me. I like having them, because sometimes one of them turns into Darwin Barney or Ryan Theriot, but either I'm really underrating them or assuming we'll get an AS out of the trio seems to be way overhyped.

You probably know them better than I do, but I just don't see what I'm supposed to be so hyped about.

Out of 30 MLB farm systems, how many of them do you think have three middle infielders the equivalent of Amaya, Torreyes and Bruno?

Highest upside out of a standard-issue batch of generic middle-infield longshots isn't exactly high praise.

*shrug* if that's how you want it. Okay, who do you want me to look at? Name teams. It seems like you are just speaking in imaginary generalities. Meh. Even before the new CBA, the competitive advantage there was dwindling pretty quickly. Overslotting is one of those things that only works if not very many teams are doing it. As more teams do it, the competitive advantage dwindles significantly. I'm not at all convinced the Cubs got anything particularly useful out of their 2011 Overslot Party. I agree that the last front office dropped the ball on acquiring more picks. There were many situations where they could have easily netted extra picks and failed to do so out of sheer laziness. They were there for more or less free sometimes, and they just didn't want them. But that's still a far cry from talking about passing on players you actually want for the majors because of a single, second-round pick. The draft is most definitely not a crapshoot. Or at least, it's a heavily weighted one. It is a test of scouting (and later, development) skill. Most importantly, it's extremely top heavy. You listed all the ways to try to maximize the draft, but you ignored the one that really matters. Don't be wrong about your high picks. Hitting on your first-round draft picks far outweighs anything else in the draft. The reason it looks like the Boston Red Sox placed so much importance on having multiple picks to smooth out the crapshoot aspects is because the Red Sox knew they were operating without high picks. This is a lazy thought process that I've seen many Cubs fans fall victim to. When you can't truly defend an idea, just default to "that's what Hendry would have done!" and feel like you've proven your case. Jim Hendry did a lot of things for the Cubs. He did some of them very poorly. He did some of them very well. He did some of them mediocrely. His overall results were average, which wasn't acceptable for a team with our resources. He wasn't the baseball incarnation of the Douglas Adams character who did everything wrong in life and handed out pamphlets listing all of his decisions, so that people could always do the opposite. I'm not sure what this means. You are aware that the new CBA has severely limited amateur spending to the point where you can't just choose to spend more, right? It very much is about a single draft pick. That's what we were talking about. As I said, you aren't talking about maximizing both. You are talking about fetishizing draft picks. Passing on useful major league talent because you are scared to lose your 2nd-round pick is the epitome of not maximizing both. If Theo Epstein and the Brain Trust are anywhere near as good at drafting as they seem to be, they can do just as well with a first-round pick and picks 3-25 as they can with picks 1-25. The difference with a missing non-first pick is minimal. See above.

Avoiding useful major leaguers because you'd have to give up a second-round pick isn't developing both fronts. It's fetishizing draft picks.

ONLY THE CUBS!

This is silly. It's possible to believe that amateur talent is important but still needs to be weighed against professional talent. Almost all professional talent is more valuable than a single second-round pick.

There's also a guy floating around who is 62, and back in the day he got hurt throwing his warmup pitches in a relief appearance, his only MLB appearance. He was officially in the game but never threw a pitch. I'd love to hear what he thinks about all this.

The position matters a lot. Early first-round pick = extremely valuable. Everything else = Pick two dozen vaguely interesting guys and hope one sticks. Avoiding a useful player because you don't want to give up a second-round pick is more like swinging at the first pitch because you are scared you won't get a better one.

That works out well, because CF and SP are two of our biggest holes.

The compensation this year would be a 2nd-round pick. If a guy is worth having, he's worth giving up a 2nd-round pick for.

Because the best of a [expletive] pool might not be that good? Or a good fit? Or even make sense except in that aquiring them might make some petulant kids feel better for five minutes, until they realize it didn't really help all that much? Again, no one is saying not to spend some money on some players, just that emptying the coffers just because the money is there isn't necessarily a good idea. Other than Upton and Sanchez or Greinke, what is there that begs to be bought? Certainly nothing that's turning the 2013 Cubs into contenders, or help beyond next year (unless it's spun off for more prospects). Okay, so let's buy Upton and Sanchez and Greinke. Like I said, of course there's a fit. There are major-league players available, and we are nowhere near full up on those.

Yeah, why would we want the best players anyway. Unless that player is a SS or 1b, there's a fit.