2015 Cubs Offseason Discussion

[chibears55]

he comes across way too arrogant. he seems to think he is one of the biggest insiders. for him, a media member of chicago, he shouldnt be saying castillo should be the main piece as that makes him look awful. the shawnometer post seems about right...not sure i would do that deal though.


Sent from My 1998 Palm Pilot Using Tapatalk

Not that i care for Levine but trying to see where he stated that Castillo was the MAIN PIECE in a deal that could involve hamels.. all i see is the Phillies inquired about Castillo

Seriously Dews, do you need glasses for reading or just see words that arent there. . Im concerned for you.. [emoji6]


Bruce Levine reported Saturday morning the Phillies have talked to the Cubs about Welington Castillo. According to Levine, the Cubs would be willing to trade Castillo, in the right deal, if the front office is able to sign Russell Martin. Levine mentioned Castillo could be used in a package to acquire Hamels. The Phillies possible interest in Castillo should not come as a surprise. Ryne Sandberg was Castillo’s manager in Peoria (2007), Tennessee (2009) and Iowa (2010).

 

[beckdawg]

Lol, right back at ya. My point was to pump the brakes on him. He is not the caliber of hitter as Bryant and isnt a cant miss bat. Thats why your post is humorous. The sample I "used" wasnt meant to be the defining point of my post, but I thank you for the concern.

How do you even know? Look I have no problem with you suggesting people should slow their role projecting him as the next great hitter but you're equally making declarative statements that he's not this or that. Even if you're just going as far to say scouts don't believe he's the same type of player I'd point you to something I saw earlier today.

In 2005, the Red Sox minor league system was ranked 21st among the 30 teams. Their top six prospects that year were: 1. Hanley Ramirez, 2. Brandon Moss, 3. Jonathan Papelbon, 4. Jon Lester, 5. Anibal Sanchez, 6. Dustin Pedroia. They’ve since gone on to accumulate 164.4 WAR. The Chicago Cubs were ranked 11 spots ahead of the Red Sox, at No. 10. Their top prospects were; 1. Brian Dopirak, 2. Felix Pie, 3. Ryan Harvey, 4. Angel Guzman, 5. Billy Petrick, 6. Renyel Pinto. They ended up being worth minus 1.1 WAR.

At the end of the day Schwarber hit .344/.428/.634 thus far in the minors. It may well be over matched competition at this point but he's done literally nothing to give you pause thus far outside of the obvious positional concerns. Does any of that guarantee he's a star hitter in the making? Of course not but none of that also gives you reason to be concerned about his future any more than you would already be about someone who may have difficulty with a position. Also for what it's worth, Bryant at a similar age advantage hit .336/.390/.688 essentially vs the same competition last season. As such, if it was even worth talking about Bryant prior to this season then it's equally worth while talking about Schwarber. Literally the only difference is Bryant has less positional concerns. Again, I have no problem with someone saying people should wait on their expectations about Bryant prior to this season for reasons you're expressing on Schwarber now. My only point here is that if you talk about Bryant with any confidence you have to talk about Schwarber with similar levels unless you're expressing concerns about where he plays.

 

[SilenceS]

How do you even know? Look I have no problem with you suggesting people should slow their role projecting him as the next great hitter but you're equally making declarative statements that he's not this or that. Even if you're just going as far to say scouts don't believe he's the same type of player I'd point you to something I saw earlier today.



At the end of the day Schwarber hit .344/.428/.634 thus far in the minors. It may well be over matched competition at this point but he's done literally nothing to give you pause thus far outside of the obvious positional concerns. Does any of that guarantee he's a star hitter in the making? Of course not but none of that also gives you reason to be concerned about his future any more than you would already be about someone who may have difficulty with a position. Also for what it's worth, Bryant at a similar age advantage hit .336/.390/.688 essentially vs the same competition last season. As such, if it was even worth talking about Bryant prior to this season then it's equally worth while talking about Schwarber. Literally the only difference is Bryant has less positional concerns. Again, I have no problem with someone saying people should wait on their expectations about Bryant prior to this season for reasons you're expressing on Schwarber now. My only point here is that if you talk about Bryant with any confidence you have to talk about Schwarber with similar levels unless you're expressing concerns about where he plays.

That has literally nothing to do with my point and yes, I can absolutey talk about Kris Bryant with more confidence. Schwarber isnt in his tier of hitting prospect and almost no scout would say he is in the same category. My point was slow the roll on cant miss. You came back with some random farms trying to tie it in somehow. I know all kind of different prospects make it and being highly touted doesnt guarantee anything. It had nothing to do with my point.

 

[beckdawg]

That has literally nothing to do with my point and yes, I can absolutey talk about Kris Bryant with more confidence. Schwarber isnt in his tier of hitting prospect and almost no scout would say he is in the same category. My point was slow the roll on cant miss. You came back with some random farms trying to tie it in somehow. I know all kind of different prospects make it and being highly touted doesnt guarantee anything. It had nothing to do with my point.

No prospect is ever can't miss. Whether or not scouts would say he's in the same category is entirely pointless because scouting is at best throwing darts and hoping which was the exact point I was trying to make with my quote about the red sox/cubs. So for you to make the claim that he's "not the same caliber hitter" is beyond ridiculous. You or anyone else for that matter have no clue what either Bryant or Schwarber will be and to claim other wise is beyond arrogant.

 

[TL1961]

oops

 

[SilenceS]

No prospect is ever can't miss. Whether or not scouts would say he's in the same category is entirely pointless because scouting is at best throwing darts and hoping which was the exact point I was trying to make with my quote about the red sox/cubs. So for you to make the claim that he's "not the same caliber hitter" is beyond ridiculous. You or anyone else for that matter have no clue what either Bryant or Schwarber will be and to claim other wise is beyond arrogant.

Lol, :facepalm2: This explains so much

 

[SilenceS]

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/evaluating-the-prospects-chicago-cubs/

Warning: Dont read the projections because it was arrogant of the author to give such predictions.

 

[SilenceS]

oops

:aj:

 

[TC in Mississippi]

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/evaluating-the-prospects-chicago-cubs/

Warning: Dont read the projections because it was arrogant of the author to give such predictions.

Why was it arrogant? Those predictions for most of those guys are not a far cry from what I've seen elsewhere and are actually fairly conservative. I wouldn't be surprised if they look very similar to the ones sitting in the Cubs' FO.

 

[SilenceS]

Why was it arrogant? Those predictions for most of those guys are not a far cry from what I've seen elsewhere and are actually fairly conservative. I wouldn't be surprised if they look very similar to the ones sitting in the Cubs' FO.

I was being facetious. Its a well written article. I was making fun how scouting is just throwing a dart at a wall which is humorous.

 

[TC in Mississippi]

I was making fun how scouting is just throwing a dart at a wall which is humorous.

It really isn't though. Scouting is a combination of a ton of things that need to be completed before you throw those darts and another whole set that needs to be done after they've been thrown. All of those things combine and help you project who a player is and what his ceiling and floor are. Without that knowledge it's dumb luck and while there's always an element of that you can't rely on that alone so you do your homework, psychologists are employed, computer models are used and both the man and the data are studied endlessly.

One of the major outcomes of all that is that today's top prospects are much easier to predict than in the past. Twenty years ago the top ten prospects in the game were largely picked on anecdotal evidence and individual scouting. The failure rate of those prospects reflected that and the percentage of those top 10 that actually became productive MLB players was around 25%. Over the five year period of 2008 to 2012 (factoring out catastrophic injury) that rate was around 60% primarily because of established metrics and more balanced scouting.

To me the best way as fans and students of the game like most of us are is to learn as much as we can, read as many opinions as we can and choose to believe the most reasoned ones of those. Doesn't mean they'll be right but they'll be based in logic and evidence.

 

[brett05]

It really isn't though. Scouting is a combination of a ton of things that need to be completed before you throw those darts and another whole set that needs to be done after they've been thrown. All of those things combine and help you project who a player is and what his ceiling and floor are. Without that knowledge it's dumb luck and while there's always an element of that you can't rely on that alone so you do your homework, psychologists are employed, computer models are used and both the man and the data are studied endlessly.

One of the major outcomes of all that is that today's top prospects are much easier to predict than in the past. Twenty years ago the top ten prospects in the game were largely picked on anecdotal evidence and individual scouting. The failure rate of those prospects reflected that and the percentage of those top 10 that actually became productive MLB players was around 25%. Over the five year period of 2008 to 2012 (factoring out catastrophic injury) that rate was around 60% primarily because of established metrics and more balanced scouting.

To me the best way as fans and students of the game like most of are is to learn as much as we can, read as many opinions as we can and choose to believe the most reasoned ones of those. Doesn't mean they'll be right but they'll be based in logic and evidence.

Links?

 

[TC in Mississippi]

Links?

I'll try to look again later. A quick search and I didn't find the source I had read this in but I did go through the Baseball America's top 10 for 2008-2012 and got roughly the same 60% figure.

 

[JZsportsfan]

Braves are trying to trade Evan Gattis. Better bat then Russell but much lower OBP. Not sure how the defense compares, can't really look that up now

 

[brett05]

I'll try to look again later. A quick search and I didn't find the source I had read this in but I did go through the Baseball America's top 10 for 2008-2012 and got roughly the same 60% figure.

So i looked at the first 20 years and the last 15 years and the percentages seem to be very similar. I agree that there is more advanced knowledge now but even before they hit about the same amount. Personally I think it's too early to consider classes after 2010, just too early to judge on quality players. Probably shouldn't look after 2007ish.

 

[TC in Mississippi]

So i looked at the first 20 years and the last 15 years and the percentages seem to be very similar. I agree that there is more advanced knowledge now but even before they hit about the same amount. Personally I think it's too early to consider classes after 2010, just too early to judge on quality players. Probably shouldn't look after 2007ish.

The only reason I took 2008-2012 was because that's what I remembered from the piece. It might have been Joe Sheehan and I don't subscribe anymore. A lot of stuff gets thrown out there so I could be in error.

 

[brett05]

The only reason I took 2008-2012 was because that's what I remembered from the piece. It might have been Joe Sheehan and I don't subscribe anymore. A lot of stuff gets thrown out there so I could be in error.

Eh..the point you made about metrics mattering more now to help give teams the best chance at signing a player still holds.

 

[beckdawg]

It really isn't though. Scouting is a combination of a ton of things that need to be completed before you throw those darts and another whole set that needs to be done after they've been thrown. All of those things combine and help you project who a player is and what his ceiling and floor are. Without that knowledge it's dumb luck and while there's always an element of that you can't rely on that alone so you do your homework, psychologists are employed, computer models are used and both the man and the data are studied endlessly.

People can believe what they want but at the end of the day how many players actually work out? Baseball drafts 50 rounds. 50... and you hope to get 2-3 major league players out of that. Even at the top end of the scale, 70% of top 100 prospects don't even turn out to be average major league players. Only about 50% of top 10 hitters(the most projectable players) amount to average or better major league players. To sit here and act as though the majority of teams have a strong correlation between picking players and having those players turn out to be solid players is just inaccurate. You're just as likely to find an all star player drafted in the 5-15 rounds as you are the first five rounds of a draft. Point here being that it's fairly evident that even professional scouts aren't very accurate with regard to who's "best."

 

[beckdawg]

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/evaluating-the-prospects-chicago-cubs/

Warning: Dont read the projections because it was arrogant of the author to give such predictions.

The irony here is that if you'd actually looked at the article he put Schwarber and Bryant as the following

Schwarber: Upside: .280/.360/.480, 25 homers
Bryant: Upside: .275/.360/.540, 35-40 homers

Bryant clearly has more raw power but your initial statement was that he was not the same caliber "hitter." This is a scout giving them roughly the same average and on base upsides.

 

[TC in Mississippi]

The irony here is that if you'd actually looked at the article he put Schwarber and Bryant as the following

Schwarber: Upside: .280/.360/.480, 25 homers
Bryant: Upside: .275/.360/.540, 35-40 homers

Bryant clearly has more raw power but your initial statement was that he was not the same caliber "hitter." This is a scout giving them roughly the same average and on base upsides.

Which is what I had heard along with the fact that Schwarber would have been a top three pick if he had a natural position. He's athletic enough to not be just a DH but Indiana was justifiably more interested in his bat than teaching him a position.