Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Gonfalon Cubs > Discussion
Gonfalon Cubs
— Cubs Baseball for Thinking Fans

Wednesday, May 31, 2006

Some thoughts

As the Royals pull the plug on Allard Baird, Cub fans must content themselves with two pretty solid games in a row.  It is great to see Matt Murton turn it back on - he has nine hits in his last nineteen at bats, with two homers, two doubles and a couple of walks.  New hire Tony Womack has hit .500 since his call up, and the Cubs might as well ride his hot streak.  Of course, there is no excuse for his presence on the team in the first place.  It has also been nice to see Aardsma throw some serious heat in his two performances since his recall.  His numbers in Iowa were superb, so I hope this quick success breeds confidence and he lets his stuff lead his control.

Speaking of Iowa, Rich Hill promptly returned to Triple A and dominated Nashville, a team with some quality bats.  I’ve never been fond of the “Quadruple A” label, but Hill’s performance over the past year is shaking the foundations of that belief.  How does Rothschild figure in this situation?  Is it purely a psychological barrier?  Hill has disappointed, and I would be surprised to see him back in Chicago before September, but the numbers he has put up in the high minors are too strong to discount.

Mike Restovich continues to pound the ball in Iowa - he’s now at .324/.397/.658.  Meanwhile, Jacque Jones continues to face lefties.  The double he hit off Clausen after the rain delay yesterday was on as grooved a pitch by a struggling pitcher as I’ve seen in a long time.  Out of all the screw-ups this season by Cubs’ management, the handling of Restovich is about as criminal as it gets.  What the hell is going on?

Finally, with the recent reports on Mark Prior’s rehab start, I’ve found myself thinking more and more about the benefits a massive change in pitching philosophy could have on the Cubs’ staff in particular.  The idea is not new, but a modified four-man rotation might work wonders with these guys.  Zambrano, Prior and Wood all have issues with pitch efficiency.  On the other side of the coin, they all have great stuff.  What if the Cubs went with the following set-up:

Day 1 Zambrano
Day 2 Wood
Day 3 Maddux
Day 4 Prior
Day 5 Zambrano - Maddux available for middle relief
Day 6 Wood - Prior available for middle relief
etc.

Basically, give the starters 90-100 pitches and hopefully a slight uptick in stuff will follow if they know they won’t throw more than that.  Then bring in the guy who is on his side-throw day for two-three innings of high-leverage middle relief.  Outside of performance benefits, the accumulated stress of high pitch counts which is always a concern with Prior and Wood (and should be with Z as well) is eliminated.  With Howry, Eyre, Williamson, Ohman and Dempster pitching effectively, and Marshall/Novoa available for lower leverage situations, you release Rusch and are more than covered with an eleven man rotation.  It also opens up more options when the time comes to deal some of the middle relief later this season.

Of course, regardless of any inherent problems with the set-up described above, this will never happen.  Starting pitchers are still judged on win totals by most folks and will balk at undertaking a new roll that would obviously belittle that statistic.  A paradigm of nearly thirty years would have to be overcome as well by pitching coaches and managers who have grown up with the current system.  I do believe, however, that if Prior and Wood are part of the future of this organization, some out of the box thinking on how to use them can only help the club. 

Luke Jasenosky Posted: May 31, 2006 at 04:18 PM | 55 comment(s)
  Related News:

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 1 of 1 pages
   1. Mike Emeigh Posted: May 31, 2006 at 05:28 PM (#2045848)
Rich Hill promptly returned to Triple A and dominated Nashville, a team with some quality bats.


This outing had a lot to do with:

(a) the weather, which was miserable, and
(b) the home plate umpire's ridiculous strike zone.

-- MWE
   2. Kiko Sakata Posted: May 31, 2006 at 05:37 PM (#2045857)
How does Rothschild figure in this situation?

I think he's pretty clearly part of the problem. Baker's entire staff needs to go, with the possible exception of Chris Speier (only because he hasn't been there long and he's so much better than Wendell Kim that I'm willing to cut him the slightest of slack).

The Cubs have been running guys up from Iowa all season and how many have done jack-#### for the Cubs?
Marshall. Maybe Aardsma, but he was pretty bad the first time, so I'm not ready to sing his praises for one game.

It seems reasonable to me to lay at least some of the blame for the inability of Wood and Prior to get and/or stay healthy on their pitching coach.

So who does that leave that's benefitted from Rothschild? Maybe Zambrano, but I tend to think he's just a freak of nature who would be doing what he does anywhere for anybody, but maybe that's not entirely fair.
   3. More Indecisive than Lonnie Smith on 2nd... Posted: May 31, 2006 at 05:38 PM (#2045859)
Why use Restovich when the Cubs can get Phil Nevin?
   4. Randy Watson and Sexual Chocolate Posted: May 31, 2006 at 05:38 PM (#2045860)
Hairston for Nevin and cash

Anyone want to guess, uh, why?
   5. Kiko Sakata Posted: May 31, 2006 at 05:40 PM (#2045863)
The opening line from Randy's link: Struggling designated hitter Phil Nevin was traded Wednesday by the Texas Rangers to the Chicago Cubs

Yes, clearly what the Cubs need is a player who's struggling offensively and plays a position that the Cubs don't get to use in their league!
   6. Hendry's Wad of Cash (UCCF) Posted: May 31, 2006 at 05:40 PM (#2045864)
Anyone want to guess, uh, why?

Hairston slept with Cindy Sandberg?
   7. Hendry's Wad of Cash (UCCF) Posted: May 31, 2006 at 05:43 PM (#2045865)
The opening line from Randy's link

That's funny - I was going to post the same quote.

The Rangers must be thrilled. A $10M contract off the books, for a guy who had been demoted to the bench. And they get someone halfway useful in return.
   8. Randy Watson and Sexual Chocolate Posted: May 31, 2006 at 05:56 PM (#2045884)
Why give up Hairston, who has some small but tangible value, for another team's multimillion dollar albatross contract?

Why give up anything for a guy who has very little present and no future value in a season where the odds of making the playoffs are 100 to 1?

Why not give up a bit more and get Craig Wilson, who's everything Phil Nevin is except better, cheaper, and younger?

(And I know the answers to all these questions are "because the Cubs are run by morons." They're rhetorical.)
   9. Urban Faber Posted: May 31, 2006 at 06:00 PM (#2045888)
#6 nearly made me spit out my drink.
   10. chris p Posted: May 31, 2006 at 06:09 PM (#2045901)
you guys are insane.
   11. Luke Jasenosky Posted: May 31, 2006 at 06:25 PM (#2045927)
Ah, Phil Nevin. At least he has hit LHP with some authority so far: .267/.340/.533. With Restovich in house, I still think this is stupid, even though I won't miss Hairston.

Unfortunately, does anyone get the feeling that this trade was inspired too some extent by the brilliant play of our own Tony Womack? It's scary, but I think fifteen at bats are more than enough to convince Baker/Hendry that they've found their number 2 hitter for the remainder of '06.
   12. Neil M Posted: May 31, 2006 at 06:29 PM (#2045935)
The double he hit off Clausen after the rain delay came after 2 batters had walked on a combined 9 pitches and on a 1-0 count.

It's just as well it was as grooved a pitch by a struggling pitcher as I’ve seen because otherwise it was stupid.
   13. Luke Jasenosky Posted: May 31, 2006 at 06:49 PM (#2045956)
Hey Neil,

That was my point. It was dumb for him to swing at the pitch, but he obviously was prepared for a meaty offering, as Hume had just visited the mound. It doesn't excuse his hacktastic ways, but I think he was smart enough to realize that any pitch on the inner half in his zone would probably arrive without much zip and he did take advantage of it. Without the rain delay, I'd bet my '87 Topps Drew Hall card he would have put up another miserable performance.
   14. Neil M Posted: May 31, 2006 at 07:13 PM (#2045985)
but he obviously was prepared for a meaty offering,

I think you give himtoo much credit. I'd say that he was going to rip at anything around the zone because that's what he does 99% of the time. The likely quality of the pitch probably had nothing to do with his action. All the same, he got the hit so I'll save further moans until the next time he doesn't.
   15. Fred Garvin, Male Prostitute Posted: May 31, 2006 at 07:18 PM (#2045997)
New hire Tony Womack has hit .500 since his call up, and the Cubs might as well ride his hot streak.

. . . and sign him to a 2-yr, $4.5mm deal as the second baseman for 2007-08.
   16. zonk Posted: May 31, 2006 at 07:29 PM (#2046020)

Why not give up a bit more and get Craig Wilson, who's everything Phil Nevin is except better, cheaper, and younger?


In the Cubs defense - and I loathe doing it - I'm thinking the Bucs have a near ridiculously high asking price for Wilson. I think he's been near the top of any "Most likely to be traded" list since what... January (?) and hasn't been moved yet. I'd have paid more than Hairston for him, but I have a feeling the Pirates are thinking Pie, Milledge, or someone of that timber in return.
   17. Fred Garvin, Male Prostitute Posted: May 31, 2006 at 07:33 PM (#2046032)
I think he's been near the top of any "Most likely to be traded" list since what... January (?) and hasn't been moved yet.

I thought Walker was at the top of that list.

Btw, as lousy as this team has been, could you imagine how much worse it would have been if Hendry had followed his plan and dealt Walker for some spare minor leaguers?
   18. Neil M Posted: May 31, 2006 at 07:35 PM (#2046040)
I think fifteen at bats are more than enough to convince Baker/Hendry that they've found their number 2 hitter for the remainder of '06.

Not tonight. Against the LHP, Dusty has opted for Neifi. In the 2 hole. It's like last year never happened.
   19. zonk Posted: May 31, 2006 at 07:38 PM (#2046050)
Btw, as lousy as this team has been, could you imagine how much worse it would have been if Hendry had followed his plan and dealt Walker for some spare minor leaguers?

That would have given Dusty a chance to follow his heart and bat Neifi 3rd or 4th, though... Sadly, I'm not so sure the Cubs would have scored less in May than they did anyway.

Boy... setting aside Nevin - and if Walker HAD been dealt, with Lee out, and Barrett soon to miss 10 games -- imagine a lineup with Bynum, Blanco, Neifi, and Mabry. You just KNOW we'd have seen several of those.
   20. Mayonnaise Savant (DTM) Posted: May 31, 2006 at 09:34 PM (#2046509)
Not tonight. Against the LHP, Dusty has opted for Neifi. In the 2 hole. It's like last year never happened.


Or all of this year.
   21. Pops Freshenmeyer Posted: June 01, 2006 at 12:27 AM (#2046882)
Hairston for Nevin and cash

One of DJF's PR moves. The Cubs get a useless player with a recognizable name. It's a fan base palliative that will have little effect on the win column. The best part of it is that the team has now spent about $7 million for zilch. The bean counters in Trib Corp. will love that.

This moribund front office is a joke.
   22. Pops Freshenmeyer Posted: June 01, 2006 at 12:29 AM (#2046884)
The Rangers got utility player Jerry Hairston Jr. from the Cubs and will pay most of the remaining difference between Nevin's $10 million salary and the $2.3 million Hairston is making this season.

Oops

The Cubs are still idiots
   23. SouthSideRyan(CASEY'S GONE!!) Posted: June 01, 2006 at 01:09 AM (#2046900)
From what I'd read, Nevin will cost the Cubs about 1.5M more than Hairston would have.
   24. Vaux, A.B.D. Posted: June 01, 2006 at 03:14 AM (#2046911)
I don't think a six day rotation would diminish pitchers' "win" totals. It would make them more uniformally effective when they do pitch, which would if anything add some wins, but at last compensate for the lost few starts. It also removes some of the risk that they'll miss even more starts than that, and if it involves a few relief appearances too, it would probably result in more decisions instead of fewer. Maybe a team could even get their pitchers to understand all that, if it approached the situation properly. Plus, it's not like potential free-agent suitors wouldn't be aware of how a pitcher had been deployed during his previous contract. They'd just look at the effectivness stats, like most teams already do, I assume.
   25. Pops Freshenmeyer Posted: June 06, 2006 at 04:10 PM (#2053898)
The Cubs drafted Clemson outfielder Tyler Colvin with their first pick. What about their subsequent picks, you ask?

The Cubs did not have another selection until the fifth round. They lost the second-, third- and fourth-round picks when they signed free agents Bob Howry, Scott Eyre and Jacque Jones


It would be funny if it wasn't so sad.
   26. Don't question Moses Taylor's Buymorian patriotism Posted: June 06, 2006 at 04:58 PM (#2053983)
Not only that Pops, but this guy isn't that great of a prospect, supposedly. He was ranked 170th by BA.
   27. Fred Garvin, Male Prostitute Posted: June 06, 2006 at 05:26 PM (#2054059)
From what I've read, he's a guy that has been very hot the last few weeks, causing him to rise in many rankings. Most scouts figured he'd go in the first few rounds (the consensus was probably Round 2), but to go at #13 was a surprise and possibly an overdraft.

I've also read speculation that the Cubs had a predraft deal worked out, the idea being that they could save money for use in trying to attract Jeff Samardzija (the ND rhp/WR they picked in the 5th round).
   28. Pops Freshenmeyer Posted: June 06, 2006 at 05:46 PM (#2054085)
the idea being that they could save money for use in trying to attract Jeff Samardzija

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!
   29. Hendry's Wad of Cash (UCCF) Posted: June 06, 2006 at 06:22 PM (#2054151)
Most scouts figured he'd go in the first few rounds (the consensus was probably Round 2), but to go at #13 was a surprise and possibly an overdraft.

FWIW, he went in the early second round in the Callis mock draft (I think around #50).

When you've only got 1 pick in the first four rounds (the "hidden" cost of all those bullpen signings), I'm not sure going with a project is the best choice.
   30. Baseballing powerhouse Crispix Attacks Posted: June 06, 2006 at 06:53 PM (#2054193)
But the last Clemson football player to be picked early in the MLB draft was an unqualified success!!!!
   31. Pops Freshenmeyer Posted: June 06, 2006 at 07:30 PM (#2054259)
When you've only got 1 pick in the first four rounds (the "hidden" cost of all those bullpen signings), I'm not sure going with a project is the best choice.

When you've only got 1 pick in the first four rounds, why do you need to bother with a "signability" guy (if they did do that) in order to throw money at someone else? I'm not that familiar with this year's draft crop due to school and studying for the bar but every year seems to bring a crop of guys who want too much money for their eventual draft spot.

Maybe the rising revenues have eliminated the need for teams to avoid expensive players.

I hope the Cubs reinvest the unspent draft money in their Caribbean and Latin American programs. Lord knows it isn't doing them any good to use it at the major league level (Phil Nevin).
   32. zonk Posted: June 06, 2006 at 07:34 PM (#2054271)
This must be the year that the vaunted Hendry scouting machine jumps the shark.

This sucks. The Cubs are the first would-be 'dynasty' I can remember that skipped right past the whole 'consistent contention' and 'winning titles' phase and proceeded directly to irrelevance, sputtering away and deaf and blind to where things went wrong.
   33. Thomas Richard Hamilton Nugent Posted: June 06, 2006 at 08:15 PM (#2054364)
It seems stupid and shortsighted, but I don't think anyone should get too bent out of shape about the Cubs losing their 2-4th round picks. According to philly's draft study (IIRC, SOSH won't let me access it anymore), picks made after the first half of the first round aren't really worth that much anyway. By the 40th pick, the average player has the same career value as Ron Coomer or John Flaherty.

And since Hendry took over as scouting director, the Cubs have done a good job in the draft. That doesn't mean that Colvin was a good pick, but I guess we'll see. It would be odd to see the Cubs make a signability pick since they have never been shy about drafting Boras clients or other expensive talent.

I read in a chat with Goldstein that Colvin is pretty polished--a sort of low risk, low reward pick. He was rumored to be a potential 1st round pick by the White Sox at 29.
   34. Pops Freshenmeyer Posted: June 06, 2006 at 09:25 PM (#2054563)
By the 40th pick, the average player has the same career value as Ron Coomer or John Flaherty.

Which would be an improvement on how many of Chicago's current roster spots?
   35. zonk Posted: June 06, 2006 at 09:34 PM (#2054595)
And since Hendry took over as scouting director, the Cubs have done a good job in the draft.

See - I'm not so sure about this anymore. Hill washed out - although everyone had him as a decent to better major league quality 2b/leadoff hitter. Dopirak's stalled (though sure, he's still young). Ditto Harvey. Pawelek is still to young to really look at... Beyond Prior --- Marshall? Brendan Harris?

I'm not saying Hendry hasn't drafted well - I'm just thinking back-of-the-napkin here... The gem out of the Cubs' recent drafts (and I'm just thinking Hendry as scouting director and GM time) was the oft-injured Prior, but I could have made that pick. Zambrano was a FA (and, I believe, credit for him goes to Oneri Fleita). I guess you could look at the players Hendry's pissed away -- Sisco and Nolasco look to be keepers. I'm not certain when Dontrelle Willis was drafted.

The former Cubs system renaissance was really built at least as much on better international scouting and signings (Choi, Ryu, Z, Cruz, etc) - and I think Fleita and the departed Leon Lee get more credit for that than Hendry.

I'm not saying Hendry's been awful in the draft - far from it - but while I might have agreed the Cubs have drafted well under Hendry last year, I'm a bit skeptical today. That could well be my distaste for the general suckiness of the Cubs coloring my opinion... but there it is.
   36. Pops Freshenmeyer Posted: June 06, 2006 at 09:37 PM (#2054608)
I'm not certain when Dontrelle Willis was drafted.

He was.

I have long been of the opinion that the Cubs are not an above average drafting team. They have, however, been exemplary in finding international talent. Perhaps the best in baseball?
   37. Pops Freshenmeyer Posted: June 06, 2006 at 09:39 PM (#2054614)
I'm not certain when Dontrelle Willis was drafted.

He was.


I no read good.

He was picked in the 8th round of the 2000 draft.
   38. zonk Posted: June 06, 2006 at 09:48 PM (#2054650)
Best?

Hmmm... I think the Dodgers still seem do pretty well for themselves (thinking of Guzman, Aybar... could probably come up with a few more). Obviously, the Cubs are eons ahead of where they were 10 years ago - or 20 years ago, when the Jays and Dodgers seemed own the interational market. Looking over the past 20 years - I found Hector Villanueva in the late 80s.. Jeremi Gonzalez a few years later -- then nothing until the Hendry regime.

Again, though - I read that much of the international credit has to go to Fleita and Lee. I suppose it's a good thing that Hendry had the sense to elevate Fleita when he was promoted...
   39. zonk Posted: June 06, 2006 at 09:54 PM (#2054662)
He was picked in the 8th round of the 2000 draft.

Ahhh yes... the "we got the next A-Rod!" draft.
   40. Pops Freshenmeyer Posted: June 06, 2006 at 10:13 PM (#2054709)

Ahhh yes... the "we got the next A-Rod!" draft.


I was thinking about that one today. I believe Montanez is still on the short list for ;argest signing bonuses six years after the fact.
   41. Fred Garvin, Male Prostitute Posted: June 06, 2006 at 10:40 PM (#2054761)
It seems stupid and shortsighted, but I don't think anyone should get too bent out of shape about the Cubs losing their 2-4th round picks. According to philly's draft study (IIRC, SOSH won't let me access it anymore), picks made after the first half of the first round aren't really worth that much anyway.

The other thing to keep in mind is that this is supposed to be the weakest draft class since 2000.
   42. Fred Garvin, Male Prostitute Posted: June 06, 2006 at 10:43 PM (#2054769)
And since Hendry took over as scouting director, the Cubs have done a good job in the draft.

See - I'm not so sure about this anymore.


Neither am I. IMO, the Cubs drafted far better when Hendry was scouting director than since he's been GM. This year's draft was run by the new scouting director, Tim Wilken -- who got good reviews for his past work with the Devil Rays and especially the Blue Jays -- so we'll have to see.
   43. Fred Garvin, Male Prostitute Posted: June 06, 2006 at 10:48 PM (#2054784)
Here is Kevin Goldstein's take on the Cubs strategy (Colvin/Samardzija):

"The Colvin pick is not a pick within itself, it is part of a much bigger picture, and a pretty interesting move. Colvin was generally seen as a third-round talent, but the Cubs took him there because they were going to grab Samardzija in the fifth, as they're the only team willing to pay him AND give him a deal that at least temporarily allows him to still play football. So instead of taking Samardzija in the first round (and he does have late first round talent), they took a guy who would NOT be there in the fifth AND still got Samardzija. It's a risky gambit, and frankly, it's one I don't like. Those two sports guys who still play football don't have a great track record."
   44. Thomas Richard Hamilton Nugent Posted: June 06, 2006 at 11:53 PM (#2054859)
Notable players drafted by the Cubs since Jim Hendry became scouting director:

1996 - Kyle Lohse
1997 - Jon Garland, Scott Downs, Michael Wuertz
1998 - Corey Patterson, Ohman, Eric Hinske
1999 - Steve Smyth, John Webb, Pete Zoccolillo [Terrible draft]
2000 - Wellemeyer, Leicester, Dubois, Dontrelle Willis
2001 - Prior, Nolasco, Brendan Harris, Mitre

2002 - Dopirak (for better or worse), Rich Hill, Randy Wells
2003 - Harvey (for better or worse), Marshall
2004 - E. Patterson, Gallagher
2005 - Pawelek, Veal, Holliman


For 1996-2001 I'd say there's at least an average of a ML starter and a ML reliever/UT a season. Although there aren't any superstars on that list, it seems like a good haul for 6 years worth of drafting.

Although there appears to be some merit to the claim that the Cubs' drafts have been worse since Hendry became GM, I think it's too soon to know for sure. For 2002, things don't look great. Hill might be a AAAA guy, but I'd like to see him get some real innings before making that judgment. I like Wells as a possible contributor. For the 2003 draft, Harvey looks bad (and looked bad at the time, he could turn it around, though). Marshall looks good. For 2004, Patterson and Gallagher look like B- or so prospects. Who knows about 2005?

One weakness for the farm system is that it appears as if the Cubs have not been doing as well in the international market since about 2001. None of their top 20 prospects according to Sickels are international signings made after 2001.
   45. Pops Freshenmeyer Posted: June 07, 2006 at 08:33 AM (#2055057)
they're the only team willing to pay him AND give him a deal that at least temporarily allows him to still play football

Good news for me!

Those two sports guys who still play football don't have a great track record.

How many of those guys were pitchers?

None of their top 20 prospects according to Sickels are international signings made after 2001.

That's not good. Teams with large financial resources have the opportunity to improve the club with international players.
   46. Don't question Moses Taylor's Buymorian patriotism Posted: June 07, 2006 at 09:08 AM (#2055070)
How many of those guys were pitchers?

Chad Hutchinson is one I can think of. Who are the other guys (non-pitchers)? Henson, Carter, Weinke, Borchard. It's early, I'm drawing a blank.
   47. H. Vaughn Posted: June 08, 2006 at 09:44 AM (#2056113)
Matt Mauck and Quincy Morgan are two Cub picks who did the two sport thing.
   48. zonk Posted: June 08, 2006 at 01:44 PM (#2056276)
Thanks for the list, Nuge --

I think that pretty well backs up the idea that the Cubs have necessarily had good drafts under Hendry, but they certainly haven't been disastrous either. I'd say the Cubs have drafted 'competently' under Hendry.

The most glaring thing that jumps out, though - is that the best hitter among those classes, Eric Hinske, was a guy they basically gave away and seemed, at least in the organization, to be rated below Kelton and Ryan Gripp... neither of whom have a career ahead of them in baseball.

I have no idea how 'proper' or 'fair' it is to split judgements of a team's drafts into "pitching" and "hitting" - but the Cubs ability to identify offensive talent in the draft looks to me like it's pretty abysmal. They may have made up for it with fairly strong scouting of pitching, but there's no denying the Cubs seem to have very little insight on what makes a good offensive prospect.

As far as the international situation...

I know Leon Lee is no longer with the organization - so little suprise the Pacific Rim hasn't yielded many young Cubs in the last few years.

Since Fleita moved upstairs - and is no longer "on the ground" in Latin America, I wonder if the issue with international talent is that the Cubs no longer have anyone with the eye and connections to mine this potential pool?
   49. zonk Posted: June 08, 2006 at 01:47 PM (#2056281)
Matt Mauck and Quincy Morgan are two Cub picks who did the two sport thing.

Is that Quincy Carter or Quincy Morgan? Both names sound familiar - but Carter failed miserably that I might be thinking he was 2 people.
   50. H. Vaughn Posted: June 08, 2006 at 01:52 PM (#2056285)
Oops, good catch. It was Q. Carter.
   51. Mike Emeigh Posted: June 08, 2006 at 02:09 PM (#2056295)
Who knows about 2005?


Veal and Holliman look like the real deals. Both have a few more walks than you might like to see, but their other peripherals are outstanding. I expect to see Holliman at West Tenn and Veal in Daytona before the year is out.

-- MWE
   52. Pops Freshenmeyer Posted: June 08, 2006 at 07:52 PM (#2056704)
the Cubs ability to identify offensive talent in the draft looks to me like it's pretty abysmal.

Your Kelton example also illustrates the problem of identifying offensive talent within the organization. Forget trading away Hinske, they kept Kelton in AAA while forcing Sing to repeat AA. Sing doesn't look too good at AAA but how much does a player really learn from tearing up the same level two years in a row? Why did the club think Kelton (who never produced much at any level) could be a useful major leaguer after moving to an OF corner?

Mike,

What do you think of Scott Moore's future?
   53. Pops Freshenmeyer Posted: June 08, 2006 at 07:55 PM (#2056711)
Argh!

Sing was in Daytona in 2004 when he put up that big line (before 2005's big line in West Tenn). I was fooled by the West Tenn appearance he made in 2003 and mixed up the rows.
   54. zonk Posted: June 08, 2006 at 11:22 PM (#2057279)
Your Kelton example also illustrates the problem of identifying offensive talent within the organization. Forget trading away Hinske, they kept Kelton in AAA while forcing Sing to repeat AA. Sing doesn't look too good at AAA but how much does a player really learn from tearing up the same level two years in a row? Why did the club think Kelton (who never produced much at any level) could be a useful major leaguer after moving to an OF corner?

I don't remember who said it (Yogi Berra or Casey Stengel) and about whom - and I'll screw the quote up, but it went something like "So-and-so has a great swing. Any pitcher that grooves him a thigh high fastball is going to get killed. Anything except a thigh high fastball, he'll swing and miss, though". That's pretty much been the MO of Cubs offensive prospects... all tools, no growth.

Given the stagnation of Cub minor league hitters - I really wonder if it's at least as much teaching and development as it is talent recognition. For all their foibles - Hill, Choi, Patterson (and even guys like Kelton, to some extent) were well-regarded (or at least 'regarded') prospects in their time, but they stagnated. You have to wonder how much of the blame goes towards the Cubs minor league instruction. Sample size, sure -- but the one guy (Hinske) that at least somewhat "made it" - made it in another organization.

You look at a guy like Jeff Francouer, for example -- a hitter with poor plate discipline, but no worse than say.. Corey Patterson. Granted - we'll see what happens when Jeff's got a few more seasons under his belt - but when you look around the league, it just seems there are plenty of marginally disciplined batters that end up contributing something offensively at the major league level. Or take a guy like Morgan Ensberg... or Paul LoDuca... or heck, even a guy like Pedro Feliz.

Offensively speaking -
Other teams have top prospects that make it. Other teams have marginal prospects that make it. Other teams have non-prospects that make it.

The Cubs, however - don't. Maybe that'll change with say... a Ronny Cedeno carving out a Cesar Izturis line (certainly nothing to write home about) or Murton (who I think does look like a keeper) - but it's puzzling how everyone from a Harvey, Patterson, Hill, or Choi to a Sing, Mallory, Kelton, or whatever just seem to fail so miserably.

It would be interesting to see what say... that famed Lansing Lugnuts team of a few back would have turned into had it been the Braves or A's overseeing their development.
   55. Fred Garvin, Male Prostitute Posted: June 09, 2006 at 10:04 AM (#2057533)
About time I did an update --

The Cubs are now 23-36. Between 1900-2005, there have been 77 teams with the same record.

None made the post-season (0%).

Furthermore, no team with a worse record made the post-season. The team with the worst record through 59 games to make the post-season was last year's Astros. They were 24-35, one game ahead of the Cubs at this point.
Page 1 of 1 pages

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

<< Back to main

Support BBTF

donate

My Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

Offseason thoughts
(18 - 4:25pm, Nov 11)

Quick thoughts on the NLDS
(42 - 11:16am, Oct 01)

Is this the playoff rotation?
(19 - 10:04pm, Sep 26)

Official Venting Thread
(22 - 12:12pm, Sep 15)

Assigning Blame
(49 - 1:41pm, Sep 04)

GID(Lee)P
(34 - 10:12pm, Sep 03)

Wait for it...
(36 - 9:04pm, Aug 22)

Twenty Games over .500
(21 - 6:15pm, Aug 07)

The Cream Rises to the Top?
(33 - 8:30pm, May 29)

Vivid Seats is a sports ticket broker, concert ticket broker and theater ticket broker offering the best baseball tickets like Yankees tickets, Cubs tickets, and Red Sox tickets, as well as Police reunion tour tickets and Jersey Boys tickets.

We have baseball tickets, the NFL schedule, college football tickets and Cowboys tickets. We have NBA tickets like Celtics tickets and Lakers tickets. Plus, buy Giants tickets, Patriots tickets and Colts tickets. Also check out our MLB baseball schedule

Buy Cheap MLB Tickets

Concerts Theatre NFL Angels Dodgers MLB Celtics Theater NBA Tickets Venues NHL Lakers Tickets NFL Yankees NHL Phillies NBA Wicked Marlins MLB Concerts Cubs Mets Red Sox Wicked WWE Red Sox Mets Yankees Dodgers

Page rendered in 0.6019 seconds
62 querie(s) executed