|
Post by batman66 on Jun 6, 2016 7:36:44 GMT -5
Since you think you have a clue, back up your opinion with facts. (if you can) Why do 1st rounders and IFA's not count as home grown? That makes no sense. Not all 1st rounders are sure things and if anything IFA's are just as home grown as drafted players because they are experiencing a culture shock and a lot of them come over at a very young age. Torres and Jiminez for example were signed at an age where they still would have been in high school 16 or 17 . Soler I believe was 19 when they signed him .
|
|
|
Post by tehmpus on Jun 6, 2016 8:36:45 GMT -5
You're right about high schoolers and really young IFAs. I'm really more referring to IFAs that were part of their country's professional baseball league like the series nacional in Cuba. Professional ballplayers of other countries signed as IFAs are really more like free agents than draftees. REALLY young IFAs that really aren't part of a professional league like your examples of Torres and Jiminez would have to learn most of their baseball training in the Cubs minor leagues, so your point is completely valid. As to your question about homegrown talent, I was just stating my opinion (which everyone pretty much disagrees with). Truth is 1st rounders by definition are of course homegrown talent. My opinion was not to count them because they have enough talent and skills at the time they were drafted that IMO they don't need a whole lot of training in the minor leagues, and the discussion had turned to me complaining about the teaching our players get in the minor leagues. I guess I'm more referring to the college players rather than high school guys who need an awful lot of training in the minor leagues no matter what round they are drafted in. College 1st rounders like Kris Bryant, or Kyle Schwarber needed very little training. Schwarber could have used better catching skills, but he was promoted too quickly to learn enough to be an everyday catcher. If Schwarber were to go down to the minors, and learn enough to be a decent defensive catcher, then we could count him toward our total. Instead he got the early call because his bat was so awesome from before he was drafted. Baez should probably be counted as homegrown even though he was a 1st rounder due to being so young. So after re-thinking this, I personally consider Baez and Szczur as homegrown talent using my definition: (Talent that got the vast majority of their skills/training in our minor leagues) Now Contreras is a guy who actually got a whole lot of training in our minor leagues (it took him a lot of years), but obviously it has paid off for him. When he gets promoted, that will be a guy our minor leagues can be proud of. Jorge Soler was 20 when he signed. espn.go.com/chicago/mlb/story/_/id/8116588/chicago-cubs-sign-cuban-outfielder-jorge-soler-nine-year-dealWhile technically he was a professional ballplayer for Cuban series nacional, he only had minimal ABs in one year. I'm not sure where you draw the line between high school and college aged in terms of IFA baseball development. I guess it doesn't have to be all or nothing. Soler could count for 1/2.
|
|
|
Post by tehmpus on Jun 6, 2016 8:42:45 GMT -5
I guess what I'd like to see is more players from the 2nd round and lower learning enough skills in our minor leagues that they become major league ballplayers. That's my beef, and I'm ok if everyone wants to disagree with me.
|
|
|
Post by batman66 on Jun 6, 2016 9:12:43 GMT -5
I guess what I'd like to see is more players from the 2nd round and lower learning enough skills in our minor leagues that they become major league ballplayers. That's my beef, and I'm ok if everyone wants to disagree with me. I understand what you are saying , some guys need little developing . I don't agree with the 1st rounders not counting, the bust factor for 1st rounders is still high .....just look back in Cubs history for that. But what I don't think you're considering is the talent level this team has on it's roster right now isn't going to give a lot of opportunities to guys that aren't the elite type talents(1st rounders). If Schwarber doesn't get hurt they have talents like Baez and Soler on the bench . These guys are starting on most other teams in baseball so this team has very little room for young non high round type talents to make the roster..
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 6, 2016 9:15:08 GMT -5
If Schwarber were to go down to the minors, and learn enough to be a decent defensive catcher, then we could count him toward our total. Instead he got the early call because his bat was so awesome from before he was drafted. speak for yourself please. the majority here don't agree with your take on this. the scouting that goes into drafting a guy like bryant or schwarber should count for something. everyone thought the cubs should take a pitcher the year bryant was drafted and obviously they made the right choice. i still remember harold reynolds talking about how the cubs pick of schwarber was a head scratcher too. if you are scouted, drafted and developed to the big league level by a single team then you are homegrown. that's really all there is to it. your qualifications are arbitrary and is really just an opinion on their developmental path. anyone in baseball will tell you bryant is homegrown. young IFA's like soler and concepcion count too. guys like rusney castillo that spent 4 years playing in cuba and were in their mid-20's when they signed shouldn't count. i understand the overall point you are making, bryant and schwarber didn't need a whole lot of development time. that doesn't mean they aren't homegrown. think of it this way... say you have a garden and you grow asparagus and green beans. the green beans take 3 months to grow before you can eat them while the asparagus takes 2 years. just because the green beans grow quicker, it doesn't mean you don't get credit for growing them.
|
|
|
Post by jerm42991 on Jun 6, 2016 9:24:54 GMT -5
I guess what I'd like to see is more players from the 2nd round and lower learning enough skills in our minor leagues that they become major league ballplayers. That's my beef, and I'm ok if everyone wants to disagree with me. Just for comparison's sake. What is the number for other teams? Without comparing them to the average, saying they should have more means nothing
|
|
|
Post by tehmpus on Jun 6, 2016 9:33:50 GMT -5
Certainly the Scouting and Drafting count for something. Those are both critical areas. Developing a player once he has been drafted is a separate issue. I think the scouting and drafting with the Cubs has been VERY good of late.
As I already posted by definition, Schwarber and Bryant are homegrown. Perhaps "homegrown" is just the wrong word to use for what I was trying to talk about. Basically I need a new word that describes a player who got the vast majority of his skills/training only from the Cubs minor league system.
Using your green beans and asperagus analogy, the only way it would make sense is if you bought the green beans already sprouted and close to maturity. Sure you could take credit for finishing the process, but you didn't start with a seed. You started with an almost fully grown plant.
Conception would be more equivalent to a seed, while Soler would be more equivalent to a seedling.
Contreras would be more like the asperagus seed you mentioned. He needed a lot of training, so it's taken a lot longer to grow. Nice plant analogy though. I liked it.
Orval, part of my gripe is that in order to win a World Series, the best way to go about that is "sustained success" that Theo talks about where the Cubs go to the playoffs year after year. Now that the team is good, we have fans now just saying that we will just draft and develop future talent, rather than relying so much on trades. So, now we are relying more on development of drafted players since the major league team isn't trading veterans to restock the system.
I'd like to see our minor league system improve to where it's almost as good as the Cardinals in terms of developing skills in the minors. If we cannot do that, then we need to continue to seek trades to shore up areas of weakness for the future (such as starting pitcher in 1 1/2 years).
Do you think Pierce Johnson, Underwood, or Black will be ready by then?
|
|
|
Post by chifan89 on Jun 6, 2016 10:31:05 GMT -5
Since you think you have a clue, back up your opinion with facts. (if you can) I guess I was off base in calling you clueless with no explanation, but you act as if the Cubs have built what they have now the same way they always did in the past (with players that had already succeeded at the MLB level). This acts as if the front office has no eye for talent or ability to develop players. They have traded for and signed average to failing major leaguers and gotten the most out of them which in itself is development (Arrietta, Feldman, Hammel, Strop). Also Hendricks was always a guy that was assumed to be a non factor by scouts and many of us fans no matter what his numbers said. Everyone thought the Cubs were reaching when they drafted Schwarber. Rondon was another great acquisition that took patience to allow him to become who he is. The minor leagues are loaded with both hitting and pitching. Candelario is a great example of a player that has developed nicely with patience (as well as Contreras). The pitching may not show up as soon as we'd like because a lot of the high upside arms were high school kids, injured, or young international kids who take longer to progress due to needing a lot of coaching or not wanting to overwork them at a young age and blow out there arms. Also just a question, but since guys like Bryant and Schwarber don't count because they were that good immediately, then does the FO get discredited for guys like Chesny Young who have been really good from the get go too even though they aren't highly touted?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 6, 2016 10:31:32 GMT -5
i think homegrown is the wrong word for the point you're making. that's not really a word that encapsulates your point IMO.
fair enough on the analogy, being sprouted and close to maturity makes sense in regards to guys like bryant.
i think the system is there for sustained success, but it takes a while for the types of players you're talking about to make their way through the system. the "theo guys" in the system were drafted or acquired in the middle of 2012 or later so there really hasn't been enough time for the majority to develop within the parameters of what you're discussing.
like contreras for example, has been in the system for 8 years now... theo's system has been in place for roughly half that time.
pierce johnson could have been ready as a starter at some point this year if he could stay healthy. i do think he could be ready to start in the big leagues within a year and a half provided he stay healthy. corey black could be ready by then but i see him as a big league reliever rather than a starter. underwood i see more in the 2+ year range.
the cubs system overall is better than the cards, there's has just been in place for much, much longer. when you're discussing prospects of this nature it's only natural to be a little behind in this particular department given the "young age" of this particular system. it doesn't mean those type guys aren't there, they just haven't been around long enough to reach that point yet.
|
|
|
Post by tehmpus on Jun 6, 2016 10:32:04 GMT -5
I guess what I'd like to see is more players from the 2nd round and lower learning enough skills in our minor leagues that they become major league ballplayers. That's my beef, and I'm ok if everyone wants to disagree with me. Just for comparison's sake. What is the number for other teams? Without comparing them to the average, saying they should have more means nothing Jerm I tell you what. I was able to go through the entire Cubs 25 man roster pretty quickly because I'm really familiar with our own players, but I will do a similar example with the St. Louis Cardinals, and see what I find out.
|
|
|
Post by tehmpus on Jun 6, 2016 10:50:07 GMT -5
Since you think you have a clue, back up your opinion with facts. (if you can) I guess I was off base in calling you clueless with no explanation, but you act as if the Cubs have built what they have now the same way they always did in the past (with players that had already succeeded at the MLB level). This acts as if the front office has no eye for talent or ability to develop players. They have traded for and signed average to failing major leaguers and gotten the most out of them which in itself is development (Arrietta, Feldman, Hammel, Strop). Also Hendricks was always a guy that was assumed to be a non factor by scouts and many of us fans no matter what his numbers said. Everyone thought the Cubs were reaching when they drafted Schwarber. Rondon was another great acquisition that took patience to allow him to become who he is. The minor leagues are loaded with both hitting and pitching. Candelario is a great example of a player that has developed nicely with patience (as well as Contreras). The pitching may not show up as soon as we'd like because a lot of the high upside arms were high school kids, injured, or young international kids who take longer to progress due to needing a lot of coaching or not wanting to overwork them at a young age and blow out there arms. Also just a question, but since guys like Bryant and Schwarber don't count because they were that good immediately, then does the FO get discredited for guys like Chesny Young who have been really good from the get go too even though they aren't highly touted? Thanks for the well worded reply. I really don't mind disagreements, and I'm not so set in my ways to add additional data and opinions in such a way that I modify or even change my position on issues. Batman66 brought up a very valid point earlier in the thread if you haven't read it yet.
There are different subjects that you are discussing that we really need to separate.
#1 Does the front office have an "eye for talent" with scouting and drafting? I say that yes they do.... RESOUNDING YES. Many of our best players are from other team's minor league systems and were traded for, due to that great "eye for talent". All of the IFAs had to be scouted and identified. As for drafting, the Cubs seem to get good marks for drafting talent just about every year. (That's a big difference from past years).
#2 Once the talent has been acquired via draft, do the Cubs minor leagues teach them additional skills to create major league ballplayers?
That's really the subject of my gripe, development. Remember Josh Vitters? He was pretty highly rated when drafted, and yet the Cubs couldn't train him up for the majors. How about Trey McNutt? That was the guy we decided to keep instead of sending to Tampa in that trade. Now not all prospects turn out. I'm not being unrealistic here and expecting miracles with everybody. What I do expect is to see a couple players developed into major league capable players every year.
|
|
|
Post by chifan89 on Jun 6, 2016 11:07:08 GMT -5
I guess I was off base in calling you clueless with no explanation, but you act as if the Cubs have built what they have now the same way they always did in the past (with players that had already succeeded at the MLB level). This acts as if the front office has no eye for talent or ability to develop players. They have traded for and signed average to failing major leaguers and gotten the most out of them which in itself is development (Arrietta, Feldman, Hammel, Strop). Also Hendricks was always a guy that was assumed to be a non factor by scouts and many of us fans no matter what his numbers said. Everyone thought the Cubs were reaching when they drafted Schwarber. Rondon was another great acquisition that took patience to allow him to become who he is. The minor leagues are loaded with both hitting and pitching. Candelario is a great example of a player that has developed nicely with patience (as well as Contreras). The pitching may not show up as soon as we'd like because a lot of the high upside arms were high school kids, injured, or young international kids who take longer to progress due to needing a lot of coaching or not wanting to overwork them at a young age and blow out there arms. Also just a question, but since guys like Bryant and Schwarber don't count because they were that good immediately, then does the FO get discredited for guys like Chesny Young who have been really good from the get go too even though they aren't highly touted? Thanks for the well worded reply. I really don't mind disagreements, and I'm not so set in my ways to add additional data and opinions in such a way that I modify or even change my position on issues. Batman66 brought up a very valid point earlier in the thread if you haven't read it yet.
There are different subjects that you are discussing that we really need to separate.
#1 Does the front office have an "eye for talent" with scouting and drafting? I say that yes they do.... RESOUNDING YES. Many of our best players are from other team's minor league systems and were traded for, due to that great "eye for talent". All of the IFAs had to be scouted and identified. As for drafting, the Cubs seem to get good marks for drafting talent just about every year. (That's a big difference from past years).
#2 Once the talent has been acquired via draft, do the Cubs minor leagues teach them additional skills to create major league ballplayers?
That's really the subject of my gripe, development. Remember Josh Vitters? He was pretty highly rated when drafted, and yet the Cubs couldn't train him up for the majors. How about Trey McNutt? That was the guy we decided to keep instead of sending to Tampa in that trade. Now not all prospects turn out. I'm not being unrealistic here and expecting miracles with everybody. What I do expect is to see a couple players developed into major league capable players every year.
I'd say both Almora and Baez would be similar comps to Vitters in that they were first round picks with all the talent that just needed honing. I think they've done about as well as they can developing these two players skills to be successful at the MLB level. Just for clarification players like Vitters and Mcnutf have nothing to do with the current regime. I feel they've done about as well developing players as you can. Underwood, although struggling currently, was very much a project when they drafted him and was extremely good last year. Zastryzny (sp?), who I don't particularly think much of, has actually gotten quite a bit better statistically since we drafted him. Concepcion is 100% development as they forced him not to use his best pitch so much so he could develop others. Contreras, no details needed. Candelario struggled mightily his first couple years, but was great last year, fall, and this spring. And while he started this year slowly is starting to come around. Also I think they deserve a lot of credit for identifying arms like Hendricks, Ryan Williams, and Markey who are finesse pitchers that manage to be successful. A lot of teams ignore those guys. Eloy Jimenez has taken a drastic step forward this year.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 6, 2016 11:30:59 GMT -5
vitters and mcnutt shouldn't count as failures of this FO.
vitters never had the right mentality to make it as a pro athlete. i don't think the cubs even draft him had hendry not been running things, especially if theo had been around back then.
mcnutt had his career derailed by a shoulder injury. he missed 2 seasons and has never recovered.
you're reaching on those 2 as examples.
|
|
|
Post by tehmpus on Jun 6, 2016 11:35:56 GMT -5
Just for comparison's sake. What is the number for other teams? Without comparing them to the average, saying they should have more means nothing Jerm I tell you what. I was able to go through the entire Cubs 25 man roster pretty quickly because I'm really familiar with our own players, but I will do a similar example with the St. Louis Cardinals, and see what I find out.
Jerm, here is your comparison:
St. Louis Cardinals 25 man Roster and how they were acquired:
1) Matt Bowman - RuleV draft from Mets 2) Jonathon Broxton - free agent 3) Jaime Garcia - drafted 22nd Rd 4) Dean Kiekhefer - drafted 36th Rd 5) Mike Leake - free agent 6) Tyler Lyons - drafted 9th Rd 7) Carlos Martinez - IFA 8) Seung Hwan Oh - IFA 9) Trevor Rosenthal - drafted 21st Rd 10) Kevin Siegrist - drafted 41st Rd 11) Michael Wacha - drafted 1st round out of college 12) Adam Wainwright - trade from Atlanta 13) Eric Fryer - free agent 14) Yadier Molina - drafted 4th Rd 15) Matt Adams - drafted 23rd Rd 16) Matt Carpenter - drafted 13th Rd 17) Aledmys Diaz - IFA 18) Greg Garcia - drafted 7th Rd 19) Jedd Gyorko - trade from Padres 20) Brandon Moss - trade from Cleveland 21) Kolton Wong - draft 1st round out of college 22) Randal Grichuk - trade from Anaheim 23) Jeremy Hazelbaker - free agent 24) Matt Holiday - free agent 25) Stephen Piscotty - draft 1st round out of college
Now, I didn't look up the ages on the IFAs when they were signed. Some may have been young enough to have spent most of their learning/training in the minor leagues.
There are 3 players drafted in the 1st round out of college that I won't count since they probably had most of their skills before joining the organization.
That leaves 9 players that I count as being drafted in the 2nd round or lower whom the Cardinals graduated up to their major league team. If you look at it in depth you might be able to add a name or two depending on how much minor league training they needed when arriving from other sources, but just looking on the surface, I see 9.
|
|
|
Post by tehmpus on Jun 6, 2016 11:40:03 GMT -5
vitters and mcnutt shouldn't count as failures of this FO. vitters never had the right mentality to make it as a pro athlete. i don't think the cubs even draft him had hendry not been running things, especially if theo had been around back then. mcnutt had his career derailed by a shoulder injury. he missed 2 seasons and has never recovered. you're reaching on those 2 as examples. Those are just two high profile Cubs prospects in recent memory that didn't pan out. Vitters was our top position prospect when he was drafted. McNutt was our top pitching prospect on most charts for a few years.
This front office did not draft them. Brett Jackson is another top prospect that busted out. But we're not talking about drafting. We are talking about developing/training.
|
|
|
Post by tehmpus on Jun 6, 2016 11:46:59 GMT -5
Thanks for the well worded reply. I really don't mind disagreements, and I'm not so set in my ways to add additional data and opinions in such a way that I modify or even change my position on issues. Batman66 brought up a very valid point earlier in the thread if you haven't read it yet.
There are different subjects that you are discussing that we really need to separate.
#1 Does the front office have an "eye for talent" with scouting and drafting? I say that yes they do.... RESOUNDING YES. Many of our best players are from other team's minor league systems and were traded for, due to that great "eye for talent". All of the IFAs had to be scouted and identified. As for drafting, the Cubs seem to get good marks for drafting talent just about every year. (That's a big difference from past years).
#2 Once the talent has been acquired via draft, do the Cubs minor leagues teach them additional skills to create major league ballplayers?
That's really the subject of my gripe, development. Remember Josh Vitters? He was pretty highly rated when drafted, and yet the Cubs couldn't train him up for the majors. How about Trey McNutt? That was the guy we decided to keep instead of sending to Tampa in that trade. Now not all prospects turn out. I'm not being unrealistic here and expecting miracles with everybody. What I do expect is to see a couple players developed into major league capable players every year.
I'd say both Almora and Baez would be similar comps to Vitters in that they were first round picks with all the talent that just needed honing. I think they've done about as well as they can developing these two players skills to be successful at the MLB level. Just for clarification players like Vitters and Mcnutf have nothing to do with the current regime. I feel they've done about as well developing players as you can. Underwood, although struggling currently, was very much a project when they drafted him and was extremely good last year. Zastryzny (sp?), who I don't particularly think much of, has actually gotten quite a bit better statistically since we drafted him. Concepcion is 100% development as they forced him not to use his best pitch so much so he could develop others. Contreras, no details needed. Candelario struggled mightily his first couple years, but was great last year, fall, and this spring. And while he started this year slowly is starting to come around. Also I think they deserve a lot of credit for identifying arms like Hendricks, Ryan Williams, and Markey who are finesse pitchers that manage to be successful. A lot of teams ignore those guys. Eloy Jimenez has taken a drastic step forward this year. You're right that there has been progress. Our minor leagues has been pretty bad for a long time, so change doesn't happen overnight. Baez and Szczur both got their training and graduated to the MLB club with the Cubs. I count Baez even though he was a 1st rounder because he was very young when drafted.
|
|
|
Post by chifan89 on Jun 6, 2016 12:00:26 GMT -5
Jerm I tell you what. I was able to go through the entire Cubs 25 man roster pretty quickly because I'm really familiar with our own players, but I will do a similar example with the St. Louis Cardinals, and see what I find out.
Jerm, here is your comparison:
St. Louis Cardinals 25 man Roster and how they were acquired:
1) Matt Bowman - RuleV draft from Mets 2) Jonathon Broxton - free agent 3) Jaime Garcia - drafted 22nd Rd 4) Dean Kiekhefer - drafted 36th Rd 5) Mike Leake - free agent 6) Tyler Lyons - drafted 9th Rd 7) Carlos Martinez - IFA 8) Seung Hwan Oh - IFA 9) Trevor Rosenthal - drafted 21st Rd 10) Kevin Siegrist - drafted 41st Rd 11) Michael Wacha - drafted 1st round out of college 12) Adam Wainwright - trade from Atlanta 13) Eric Fryer - free agent 14) Yadier Molina - drafted 4th Rd 15) Matt Adams - drafted 23rd Rd 16) Matt Carpenter - drafted 13th Rd 17) Aledmys Diaz - IFA 18) Greg Garcia - drafted 7th Rd 19) Jedd Gyorko - trade from Padres 20) Brandon Moss - trade from Cleveland 21) Kolton Wong - draft 1st round out of college 22) Randal Grichuk - trade from Anaheim 23) Jeremy Hazelbaker - free agent 24) Matt Holiday - free agent 25) Stephen Piscotty - draft 1st round out of college
Now, I didn't look up the ages on the IFAs when they were signed. Some may have been young enough to have spent most of their learning/training in the minor leagues.
There are 3 players drafted in the 1st round out of college that I won't count since they probably had most of their skills before joining the organization.
That leaves 9 players that I count as being drafted in the 2nd round or lower whom the Cardinals graduated up to their major league team. If you look at it in depth you might be able to add a name or two depending on how much minor league training they needed when arriving from other sources, but just looking on the surface, I see 9.
But if you want to compare the cardinals to the current Cubs front office you have to count how many of those guys were drafted after 2012.
|
|
|
Post by tehmpus on Jun 6, 2016 12:07:11 GMT -5
This isn't a discussion about which front office is better at drafting. It doesn't matter who drafted who. What matters is that once the player is in your minor league system, how good is the system at training/developing players to get them to graduate to the major league level.
I am NOT comparing front offices. Ours is better than theirs by far. I'm comparing minor league training.
|
|
|
Post by chifan89 on Jun 6, 2016 12:17:28 GMT -5
This isn't a discussion about which front office is better at drafting. It doesn't matter who drafted who. What matters is that once the player is in your minor league system, how good is the system at training/developing players to get them to graduate to the major league level. I am NOT comparing front offices. Ours is better than theirs by far. I'm comparing minor league training. But we have hired a lot of new people to develop players since then and have an entire new organizational philosophy which makes a lot of the players we had at that point irrelevant because this front office may not have taken them because they didn't fit our philosophy and therefore couldn't be developed how they'd like.
|
|
|
Post by tehmpus on Jun 6, 2016 12:34:07 GMT -5
If player A is in your minor league system. Then it doesn't matter who drafted player A or what philosophy he had. You teach/train him in a new way of thinking and playing.
It's not about just identifying players that ALREADY do a skill well. It's about taking a player who doesn't do it well, and teaching him that skill. Once again, we're talking about training here, not scouting.
Javy Baez is a great example. He was not drafted by this front office. This isn't a draft conversation. His swing at everything he could get a bat on was anti-Cub philosophy, so they taught him a new way of batting. He's not great at it yet, but he's made some serious strides, and now no longer swings at anything remotely close to the strike zone. That's from the new training he's received.
|
|