Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 43
  1. #16
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    70
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by KyleJRM View Post
    I guess "a long time" is relative, but it really hasn't been that long since the Cubs had a good system.
    'Recent' graduates Castro, Barney, Samardzija, Archer, Colvin, LeMahieu, Fuld, Donaldson and Russell all show that this system hasn't been as useless as some like to point to. Obviously, you'd like to have more impact level talent coming through but Wilken's directive for most of the Hendry years was high floor mid level ceiling signings- we see now what can be done when the onus is put on finding and grooming elite talent from within.

  2. #17
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Candyland
    Posts
    2,884
    vCash
    1500
    http://www.baseballamerica.com/today...hat020703.html

    I haven't broken down all the drafts, but over the last 5-7 years I doubt few if any clubs have drafted better than the Cubs, especially in terms of number of legitimate prospects

    Q: Phil Drinka from Chicago IL asks:
    How deep does the farm system go as far as actual major league prospects? I have heard 60 or so, but that seems impossibly high. Also, where would their 30th best prospect rate on one of the weaker minor league systems such as the Cardinals?

    A: Jim Callis: I know I seriously looked at 45 guys for the Top 30, while with other organizations I was trying to scramble to find 30 names. Sixty doesn't seem an unreasonable number to me. No. 30 was Jon Leicester, a high-ceilinghigh-risk guy, so he's not the best guy to use as a comparison. No. 29 was Russ Rohlicek, who could have been a No. 20 guy on some bad organizations.
    The farm hasn't really been a major, major issue. It's development that's historically been piss poor.
    Last edited by cubsbullsbears2; 12-03-2012 at 12:23 AM.

  3. #18
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Detroit
    Posts
    3,775
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by KyleJRM View Post
    I guess "a long time" is relative, but it really hasn't been that long since the Cubs had a good system.
    It's a different type of good, though, I think.

    A few years ago, yeah, it was ranked 8th pre-Garza, but it got value from having a bounty of low-ceiling players with a good chance of making the majors and producing at least some value at the ML level. Guys like Flaherty and Colvin. But if you look at Sickels's top 20 from that year, I'd say it was decidedly less enthusiastic than this year's model, both at the top and depth-wise.

    At the top of the list, 2013 sports grades of A (borderline A-), B+, B+, B (borderline B+) compared to 2010's B+, B+ (borderline B), B, B. For the 2013 crop, he throws out comps to Gary Sheffield, Sammy Sosa, and Prince Fielder while getting almost a bit geeked out talking about these guys, where in 2010 he called Castro an overhyped prospect and really didn't have anything enthusiastically positive to say about any of them. You just get the impression he thinks more highly of the impact talent at the top of the system now than he did then, and with more conviction.

    Then depth-wise, while the 2010 system had depth of high floor players in the top ten, the 2013 system is just plain deeper in quality. He lists 9 C+ grade prospects outside the top-20 this year, where in 2010 he couldn't even fill out the top-20 without including some C prospects.

    The system in 2010 was a good value system, and I suppose it's fitting that much of it turned into Garza and Rizzo for the ML team and role players for other teams. But while it had solid value, it wasn't a system anyone was getting excited about. I think you have to go back to the early 2000's Prior/Patterson era for the last time the Cubs had a system this good in the same way.

  4. #19
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    7,039
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Rynoplasty View Post
    It's a different type of good, though, I think.

    A few years ago, yeah, it was ranked 8th pre-Garza, but it got value from having a bounty of low-ceiling players with a good chance of making the majors and producing at least some value at the ML level. Guys like Flaherty and Colvin. But if you look at Sickels's top 20 from that year, I'd say it was decidedly less enthusiastic than this year's model, both at the top and depth-wise.

    At the top of the list, 2013 sports grades of A (borderline A-), B+, B+, B (borderline B+) compared to 2010's B+, B+ (borderline B), B, B. For the 2013 crop, he throws out comps to Gary Sheffield, Sammy Sosa, and Prince Fielder while getting almost a bit geeked out talking about these guys, where in 2010 he called Castro an overhyped prospect and really didn't have anything enthusiastically positive to say about any of them. You just get the impression he thinks more highly of the impact talent at the top of the system now than he did then, and with more conviction.

    Then depth-wise, while the 2010 system had depth of high floor players in the top ten, the 2013 system is just plain deeper in quality. He lists 9 C+ grade prospects outside the top-20 this year, where in 2010 he couldn't even fill out the top-20 without including some C prospects.

    The system in 2010 was a good value system, and I suppose it's fitting that much of it turned into Garza and Rizzo for the ML team and role players for other teams. But while it had solid value, it wasn't a system anyone was getting excited about. I think you have to go back to the early 2000's Prior/Patterson era for the last time the Cubs had a system this good in the same way.
    I think most scouts also grade based on how soon they will be in the majors vs. how good the overall talent is.

    A guy writing about impact talent in the next few seasons will say the Cubs are lacking. A guy writing about overall potential impact talent will say the Cubs are pretty solid.

  5. #20
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    17,710
    vCash
    1500
    A few years ago, yeah, it was ranked 8th pre-Garza, but it got value from having a bounty of low-ceiling players with a good chance of making the majors and producing at least some value at the ML level. Guys like Flaherty and Colvin.
    Not true at all. Vitters was still Mr. Potential 70/70, Castro had just graduated, Lee was the new it boy, Archer was breaking out...There was an even younger Castillo, well liked even then...Cashner was one of the more well liked pitching prospects in baseball...McNutt was at his peak prospect hype...Szczur was still on the table and shinier...Flaherty, LeMahieu, Colvin, and friends all helped make the system deeper.

  6. #21
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    7,150
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by cubsbullsbears2 View Post
    http://www.baseballamerica.com/today...hat020703.html






    The farm hasn't really been a major, major issue. It's development that's historically been piss poor.
    reading that conversation makes me sad. "you'll thank your dad when they win a world series in the next 5-10 years"
    Save the kittens, ignore sbs' posts
    Red Sox hater since 10/2011

    It is anyway, not anyways.

  7. #22
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Detroit
    Posts
    3,775
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by SenorGato View Post
    Not true at all. Vitters was still Mr. Potential 70/70, Castro had just graduated, Lee was the new it boy, Archer was breaking out...There was an even younger Castillo, well liked even then...Cashner was one of the more well liked pitching prospects in baseball...McNutt was at his peak prospect hype...Szczur was still on the table and shinier...Flaherty, LeMahieu, Colvin, and friends all helped make the system deeper.
    I don't know how much of this is accurate.

    What Sickels wrote about Vitters in 2010: "Borderline B. A very tough player to grade. I really hate the low walk rate, but the strikeout rate is also low and he's still very young at age 20. I'll cut him some slack as a result."

    Cutting him some slack for his age is hardly the level of enthusiasm he seems to have for Baez, Almora, Soler, and Vogelbach this year.

    Szczur was still listed under "others" in 2011, Castillo was a C grade coming in at 20th, he'd already slated Cashner for the pen in 2010, and I think the fact that he included a list of nine more C+ prospects outside the top-20 in 2013 when there were C prospects in the top-20 in 2010 and 2011 speaks for the relative depth.

  8. #23
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    San Francisco
    Posts
    4,342
    vCash
    1500
    McNutt has tumbled sooo far down that list. In fact, Sickels had him #5 as of July 27th and now has him at #23 #shithappens

  9. #24
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,653
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by SenorGato View Post
    Initial thoughts from there:

    Thoughts...

    - Not sure I agree with the straight A on Baez. Sheffield destroys him as far as plate discipline is concerned.
    Yeah, I hope people keep in mind that the Sheffield comps are bat speed alone. Sheffield was amazing at both walking and not striking out in addition to hitting for power and average. He's definitely one of the most talented hitters of his era in terms of ability even if he didn't have the best numbers every year. He gave a great demonstration on the MLB Network about seeing different pitches out of the pitcher's hand and what adjustments he'd make on the fly when he recognized what was coming.

  10. #25
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Candyland
    Posts
    2,884
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by gaughan333 View Post
    reading that conversation makes me sad. "you'll thank your dad when they win a world series in the next 5-10 years"
    Oh I know, it's extremely depressing. Virtually every single spec flamed out.

  11. #26
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Candyland
    Posts
    2,884
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by terencem View Post
    Yeah, I hope people keep in mind that the Sheffield comps are bat speed alone. Sheffield was amazing at both walking and not striking out in addition to hitting for power and average. He's definitely one of the most talented hitters of his era in terms of ability even if he didn't have the best numbers every year. He gave a great demonstration on the MLB Network about seeing different pitches out of the pitcher's hand and what adjustments he'd make on the fly when he recognized what was coming.
    Definitely. Dude had a 140 OPS+ spanning over a 22 year career--I think he's borderline Hall of Fame.

  12. #27
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    70
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by cubsbullsbears2 View Post
    The farm hasn't really been a major, major issue. It's development that's historically been piss poor.
    This. The organization has actually had a pretty long run of 'success' in Latin America, scoring bundles of highly regarded youngsters only to develop 1% into actual value clogs. As far as the draft is concerned, Patterson, Vitters, Harvey and about a half dozen others during the Hendry years were considered fantastic, possible organization changing picks at the time. Not one was developed in a fashion at would maximize their potential. Not a single one. The organizational philosophy was catastrophically flawed, infinitely more so for hitters, and was never corrected. Always remember Sam Fuld upon being dealt just RIPPING Hendry and the player development group to pieces over they archaic approach they had the hitters use while 'progressing'. Just a damn shame.

  13. #28
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    5,746
    vCash
    1500
    I think there's a little revisionist history when comparing ceilings to how the last crop turned out. Of course the new crop will seem more exciting when you are talking about their ceilings. The sober reality will hit in a few years.

  14. #29
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    70
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by KyleJRM View Post
    I think there's a little revisionist history when comparing ceilings to how the last crop turned out. Of course the new crop will seem more exciting when you are talking about their ceilings. The sober reality will hit in a few years.
    Will it though? 'Ceilings' are arbitrary, unquantifiable things. Angel Guzman's ceiling was TORP with possible Cy Young level success. It's unreasonable to believe he would have reached such 'expectations' however it doesn't change the fact that perfect world scenario for him was such. Patterson's 'ceiling' was Kirby Puckett, Prior was 'Roger Clemens meets Greg Maddux' and so on. History and time doesn't change what these guys 'ceilings' are or are not, only changes the probability that they reach such.

  15. #30
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Detroit
    Posts
    3,775
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by KyleJRM View Post
    I think there's a little revisionist history when comparing ceilings to how the last crop turned out. Of course the new crop will seem more exciting when you are talking about their ceilings. The sober reality will hit in a few years.
    I don't think it takes hindsight for it to appear that Sickels is more enthusiastic about this crop than the group from a few years ago. And it isn't an unreasonable interpretation considering the very first thing he says in his summary of the system is that it has greatly improved over the past year or two.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •