Cub's Prospect Watch And Development Discussion Thread

[patg006]

This is a prospects' thread. What else should we be talking about here?

Lol... is this really that difficult to grasp?

This is a forum about a MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL team.

That should be the main focus, not the prospects.

Lol... is this really that difficult to grasp?

 

[theberserkfury]

This is a forum about a MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL team.

That should be the main focus, not the prospects.

Lol... is this really that difficult to grasp?

Actually, it seems that the forum is more for a major league baseball ORGANIZATION. The minor league teams that feed into the major league team are fair game for discussion... and regardless, it appears most people here want to be able to talk about them. At least on the thread that's devoted to them...

Are you this immature in real life too or does the anonymity here set you free?

 

[beckdawg]

How many one one losses did the Cubs suffer those 2 years?

15-27 in 1 run games in 2012
20-33 in 1 run games in 2013

61-101 in 2012
66-96 in 2013

Even if you say half the losses become wins you're talking about 14 games in 2012 and 17 in 2013 giving them 75 wins and 83 respectively. To think Ramirez has that sort of impact is a bit much but I'll humor you, 83 wins doesn't make the playoffs. I totally agree a team with Ramirez is infinitely more watchable than without him. But, at the end of the day he doesn't make them a playoff team those two years. The point I'm trying to make isn't that Ramirez was a bad player or that the players they signed/traded for were as good as he is. The point I'm trying to make is that because of what was behind him they didn't have enough to make the playoffs. And while I hear the idea of building around someone like Ramirez the problem is by the time you have the parts he's no longer the same player.

On the contrary, they tried to refurbish failed prospects like Wood, Volstad, Strop, Arrieta, and Stewart. Thus far, Wood and Strop look like good reclamation. Volstad and Stewart obviously failed. Arrieta remains to be seen. Those players who do work out will be around when the high profile prospects hit the majors. Obviously you don't want to be in the situation where you need to count on failed players but the cubs had nothing in their upper minors so to find the younger players you want in place when the Baez types get called up you have to start some where.

Also, it's worth noting that by letting Ramirez go to free agency they got in exchange Pierce Johnson as a compensation pick who's their second best pitching prospect. Either way, to me it doesn't matter because they weren't a playoff team in either case.

 

[patg006]

Actually, it seems that the forum is more for a major league baseball ORGANIZATION. The minor league teams that feed into the major league team are fair game for discussion... and regardless, it appears most people here want to be able to talk about them. At least on the thread that's devoted to them...

Are you this immature in real life too or does the anonymity here set you free?

And as I previously stated several times very plainly and clearly that most teams the focus of the discussion is on the major league team. At least on a forum that's devoted to them...

Are you this ignorant and petty in real life or does the anonymity here set you free?

 

[patg006]

Either way, to me it doesn't matter because they weren't a playoff team in either case.

Only the truly ignorant would defend bad moves because a team wasn't a playoff team either way.

 

[theberserkfury]

And as I previously stated several times very plainly and clearly that most teams the focus of the discussion is on the major league team. At least on a forum that's devoted to them...

Are you this ignorant and petty in real life or does the anonymity here set you free?

I guess you just don't understand (or refuse to acknowledge) how threads on a forum work... not sure if that's cause you're incapable or just unwilling, but doesn't really matter...

I do sincerely hope you're not this insufferable in person... :smh:

And lol... "ignorant"?

[video=youtube;G2y8Sx4B2Sk]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2y8Sx4B2Sk[/video]

 

[SilenceS]

Castro walked yesterday! Suck it bitches!

:flipa:

 

[patg006]

I guess you just don't understand (or refuse to acknowledge) how threads on a forum work... not sure if that's cause you're incapable or just unwilling, but doesn't really matter...

I guess you just don't understand (or refuse to acknowledge) that a major league baseball team forum should be mainly about the major league team.... not sure if that's cause you're incapable or just unwilling or just prefer to whine and cry, but doesn't really matter.

 

[JP Hochbaum]

Let's talk about all the ways the team is improved now compared to 3 years ago.....


More crickets.

Epstein has repeatedly said the goal for the first 3-5 years is in player development, not in signing guys that will give us a few more wins and a worse draft pick.

Most people understand that in a rebuilding phase you don't kid yourself into thinking the Cubs are contenders, they aren't.

So criticize the big league team all you want, but I don't see how criticizing the product on the field can relate to what Epstein is doing to build the farm system.

Theo came in telling all of Cub fandom that we were going to focus on the farm first, and not go crazy in free agency. So getting upset at the front office for doing what they said they would do just seems silly to me.

 

[patg006]

Epstein has repeatedly said the goal for the first 3-5 years is in player development, not in signing guys that will give us a few more wins and a worse draft pick.

And how is it that the Cardinals have no problems with that player development with all those worse draft picks they have been getting lately?

So criticize the big league team all you want, but I don't see how criticizing the product on the field can relate to what Epstein is doing to build the farm system.

And yet somehow most other teams are able to build their farm systems without having a product on the field that deserves the criticism the Cubs get.

Theo came in telling all of Cub fandom that we were going to focus on the farm first, and not go crazy in free agency. So getting upset at the front office for doing what they said they would do just seems silly to me.

Actually no.

He came in telling all of Cub fandom that the goal of the team was to win the World Series every year and that every season was precious.

 

[JP Hochbaum]

And how is it that the Cardinals have no problems with that player development with all those worse draft picks they have been getting lately?

I never said you had to be bad in order to draft well. I said you have to be bad to get better draft picks. Big difference. I think most people would agree that a # 1 draft pick is better than #30.

And yet somehow most other teams are able to build their farm systems without having a product on the field that deserves the criticism the Cubs get.

Again we aren't other teams, each team has a unique situation. IN the Cubs situation we would have had to sign an entire squad Yankee or Dodger style in order to be contenders. That is simply not a winning formula.

Actually no.

He came in telling all of Cub fandom that the goal of the team was to win the World Series every year and that every season was precious.

Now you are cherry picking quotes. Yes he did say winning a WS is a goal but he also said that in the immediate future we would be focusing on the farm first in order to get the goal of a WS.

 

[patg006]

I never said you had to be bad in order to draft well. I said you have to be bad to get better draft picks. Big difference. I think most people would agree that a # 1 draft pick is better than #30.

I'll take picking #30 over #1 all day, everyday.

You don't have to pick in the top 10 to draft well.

The Cardinals haven't drafted in the top 10 since 1998. They have had 15 winning seasons in 17 years since then.

The Dodgers have picked in the top 10 once since 1993. They have had 19 winning seasons in 22 years since then.

The Red Sox picked in the top 10 for the first time since 1993. They have had 18 winning seasons in 22 years since then.

Isn't that the kind of long term success everyone is looking for? That people claim the only way to achieve is by losing big first? Well how have these teams done it then without losing big first?

Everyone slurps over the drafting and farm system Theo developed in Boston in which he never picked in the top 10. But now somehow him doing the exact opposite thing here in Chicago is the best way? Despite many teams doing the exact opposite and being very successful?

Again we aren't other teams, each team has a unique situation. IN the Cubs situation we would have had to sign an entire squad Yankee or Dodger style in order to be contenders. That is simply not a winning formula.

That is plain bullshit. They would not have had to sign an entire squad Yankee or Dodger style. That is flat out ridiculous.

The Yankees and Dodgers style is simply not a winning formula??

Well I have already proven the Dodgers have had 18 winnings seasons out of the last 22 and the Yankees haven't had a losing season since 1992.

If those aren't winning formulas, please educate us to exactly what is a winning formula then?

Now you are cherry picking quotes. Yes he did say winning a WS is a goal but he also said that in the immediate future we would be focusing on the farm first in order to get the goal of a WS.

Actually I am not cherry picking quotes, I am using ALL the quotes.

You are the one cherry picking the quotes by ignoring the WS goal quote and saying that quote doesn't count.

 

[JP Hochbaum]

I'll take picking #30 over #1 all day, everyday.

You don't have to pick in the top 10 to draft well.

The Cardinals haven't drafted in the top 10 since 1998. They have had 15 winning seasons in 17 years since then.

The Dodgers have picked in the top 10 once since 1993. They have had 19 winning seasons in 22 years since then.

The Red Sox picked in the top 10 for the first time since 1993. They have had 18 winning seasons in 22 years since then.

Isn't that the kind of long term success everyone is looking for? That people claim the only way to achieve is by losing big first? Well how have these teams done it then without losing big first?

Everyone slurps over the drafting and farm system Theo developed in Boston in which he never picked in the top 10. But now somehow him doing the exact opposite thing here in Chicago is the best way? Despite many teams doing the exact opposite and being very successful?





That is plain bullshit. They would not have had to sign an entire squad Yankee or Dodger style. That is flat out ridiculous.

The Yankees and Dodgers style is simply not a winning formula??

Well I have already proven the Dodgers have had 18 winnings seasons out of the last 22 and the Yankees haven't had a losing season since 1992.

If those aren't winning formulas, please educate us to exactly what is a winning formula then?



Actually I am not cherry picking quotes, I am using ALL the quotes.

You are the one cherry picking the quotes by ignoring the WS goal quote and saying that quote doesn't count.

Like I said, you don't have to be bad to draft well. Not sure how you aren't getting that. I just added the caveat that you get better players drafting at #1 than you do drafting at #25

And I guess I should determine what a winning formula is. It means winning world series, which neither the Dodgers or the Yankees have done by being FA heavy.

I also never said the WS quote doesn't count, I actually admitted that it counts and that he said it. You should not use a strawman against me, as it makes your arguments rather easy to pick apart.

 

[patg006]

Like I said, you don't have to be bad to draft well. Not sure how you aren't getting that. I just added the caveat that you get better players drafting at #1 than you do drafting at #25

No you don't. Not always.

Mike Trout went #25. Guess it is a shame the Angels didn't have the 1st pick that year huh?

Sorry but the facts have been provided on this forum before that drafting high gives a very marginal at best advantage, an advantage that is more than taken away by the large amount of losing that happens to get that high pick.

If it truly were as great an advantage as you have been told to believe, you wouldn't have seen teams like the Royals and Pirates drafting in the top 10 for decades without winning.

And I guess I should determine what a winning formula is. It means winning world series, which neither the Dodgers or the Yankees have done by being FA heavy.

Ahh ok. The 10 year old logic that the only measure of success that counts is winning the World Series.

We will see about the Dodgers.

And the 2009 Yankees won the WS with CC Sabathia, Mark Teixeira, Alex Rodriguez, Johnny Damon, AJ Burnett and Andy Pettitte after his time with Houston.

Exactly what do you have to do to be FA heavy if that isn't?

I also never said the WS quote doesn't count, I actually admitted that it counts and that he said it. You should not use a strawman against me, as it makes your arguments rather easy to pick apart.

You only admitted it AFTER I brought it up, you never would have otherwise.

So pointed out how you were actually the one cherry picking statements to counter your ridiculous claim of me cherry picking statements is being a straw man?

Whatever.

Clearly you have run out of facts and logic and are just trying whatever you can and it isn't working.

 

[JP Hochbaum]

It is baseball there are of course going to be cases where a #25 pick will pan out better than a #1 pick. Again you are relying on anomalies and not averages here.

http://viewfromthebleachers.com/blog/2012/08/23/success-rate-of-mlb-draft-picks-by-slot/

There are also going to be cases where a team heavy with FA's might win a WS. But again we are talking averages here not anomalies.

I will take the empiricism of history and over 100 years of evidence that farm systems combine with timely free agents bring sustained success over the randomness of the Yankees winning it once, even though they also had HOF'er like Jeter, Cano, and Rivera as the main cogs on that team all products of the farm.

 

[Jntg4]

No you don't. Not always.

Mike Trout went #25. Guess it is a shame the Angels didn't have the 1st pick that year huh?

Sorry but the facts have been provided on this forum before that drafting high gives a very marginal at best advantage, an advantage that is more than taken away by the large amount of losing that happens to get that high pick.

If it truly were as great an advantage as you have been told to believe, you wouldn't have seen teams like the Royals and Pirates drafting in the top 10 for decades without winning.



Ahh ok. The 10 year old logic that the only measure of success that counts is winning the World Series.

We will see about the Dodgers.

And the 2009 Yankees won the WS with CC Sabathia, Mark Teixeira, Alex Rodriguez, Johnny Damon, AJ Burnett and Andy Pettitte after his time with Houston.

Exactly what do you have to do to be FA heavy if that isn't?



You only admitted it AFTER I brought it up, you never would have otherwise.

So pointed out how you were actually the one cherry picking statements to counter your ridiculous claim of me cherry picking statements is being a straw man?

Whatever.

Clearly you have run out of facts and logic and are just trying whatever you can and it isn't working.

When you have the #1 pick, you can literally pick any player you want. With the #25, you have less options. Even if it works out, you are more limited later on.

 

[chibears55]

Wondering how many 25-30 picks panned out better then top 5 picks over the last 20 yrs..

My guess not many. ..

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I527 using Tapatalk

 

[JP Hochbaum]

Wondering how many 25-30 picks panned out better then top 5 picks over the last 20 yrs..

My guess not many. ..

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I527 using Tapatalk

http://viewfromthebleachers.com/blog/2012/08/23/success-rate-of-mlb-draft-picks-by-slot/

This also only goes up to 2006, before sabermetrics was really strong. So it has likely improved since then.

 

[patg006]

It is baseball there are of course going to be cases where a #25 pick will pan out better than a #1 pick. Again you are relying on anomalies and not averages here.

A slight advantage to drafting in the top ten is just that, a slight advantage. Not an anomaly.

An anomaly would be something like getting a better pick picking lower like once every ten or twenty years. You can get better or equal picks outside the top ten almost every year.

even though they also had HOF'er like Jeter, Cano, and Rivera as the main cogs on that team all products of the farm

They weren't the main cogs though.

Almost their entire starting rotation was brought in via FA and that is what they had been missing and what got the their championship.

There are also going to be cases where a team heavy with FA's might win a WS. But again we are talking averages here not anomalies.

Your 100 years of evidence will show that there have been as many, if not more, teams that won with FA than a core of farm system.

That is not an anomaly.

 

[patg006]

http://viewfromthebleachers.com/blog/2012/08/23/success-rate-of-mlb-draft-picks-by-slot/

This also only goes up to 2006, before sabermetrics was really strong. So it has likely improved since then.

The odds in that chart of finding a superior player drafting in the top ten is 27.2%. Outside the top ten is 12.1%

So over a ten year period, the odds say you will get one, maybe two extra superior players over a ten year period.

Once again, that is not a big enough advantage to support the theory that you are gaining an advantage for losing big for ten years.