Posts: 2,696
Threads: 47
Joined: Nov 2008
Reputation:
0
<!--quoteo(post=12815:date=Jan 21 2009, 02:57 PM:name=veryzer)-->QUOTE (veryzer @ Jan 21 2009, 02:57 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=12811:date=Jan 21 2009, 01:31 PM:name=Scarey)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Scarey @ Jan 21 2009, 01:31 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <!--quotec-->I really don't think the Marlins thought getting Hee Seop Choi for Derrek Lee was the answer.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes they did. Choi was the 20th ranked prospect in all of baseball at the time. In 2001 he was ranked number 3 overall. The guy had a lot of value.
<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->I also don't think that the Pirates getting Booby Hill, Jose Hernandez, and Matt Bruback was because the amazing strentgh of our farm system.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Again, Hill was the 45th ranked prospect in MLB at the time. Also, ARam had put up a .666 OPS in 2002 (the season before we acquired him of course) and out of his 5 years in the bigs at that point, he had only put up a .700+ OPS once. He wasn't a sure thing by any means and I remember quite a few people being upset that we gave up a well regarded prospect for him (although Lofton really made the deal in most people's minds at the time).
The problem is you're looking at these deals in retrospect. Now, we know that Choi and Hill turned out to be nothings, but at that time people had a lot of faith in their abilities.
At the time, these trades were not looked at as lop-sided.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
yep. i 100% agree with this. there's no doubt in my mind that the marlins thought choi was gonna be better than he was. i also don't doubt that the pirates thought hill was gonna be good. there were a whole lot of cub fans that thought both of those guys were gonna be good. don't you remember the choi backlash when that trade went down? there were people still calling it a bad trade for the cubs almost a year later.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Can we get together and just hold each other tonight?
Posts: 4,684
Threads: 78
Joined: Dec 2008
Reputation:
0
<!--quoteo(post=12839:date=Jan 21 2009, 02:59 PM:name=Scarey)-->QUOTE (Scarey @ Jan 21 2009, 02:59 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=12815:date=Jan 21 2009, 02:57 PM:name=veryzer)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (veryzer @ Jan 21 2009, 02:57 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=12811:date=Jan 21 2009, 01:31 PM:name=Scarey)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Scarey @ Jan 21 2009, 01:31 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <!--quotec-->I really don't think the Marlins thought getting Hee Seop Choi for Derrek Lee was the answer.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes they did. Choi was the 20th ranked prospect in all of baseball at the time. In 2001 he was ranked number 3 overall. The guy had a lot of value.
<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->I also don't think that the Pirates getting Booby Hill, Jose Hernandez, and Matt Bruback was because the amazing strentgh of our farm system.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Again, Hill was the 45th ranked prospect in MLB at the time. Also, ARam had put up a .666 OPS in 2002 (the season before we acquired him of course) and out of his 5 years in the bigs at that point, he had only put up a .700+ OPS once. He wasn't a sure thing by any means and I remember quite a few people being upset that we gave up a well regarded prospect for him (although Lofton really made the deal in most people's minds at the time).
The problem is you're looking at these deals in retrospect. Now, we know that Choi and Hill turned out to be nothings, but at that time people had a lot of faith in their abilities.
At the time, these trades were not looked at as lop-sided.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
yep. i 100% agree with this. there's no doubt in my mind that the marlins thought choi was gonna be better than he was. i also don't doubt that the pirates thought hill was gonna be good. there were a whole lot of cub fans that thought both of those guys were gonna be good. don't you remember the choi backlash when that trade went down? there were people still calling it a bad trade for the cubs almost a year later.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Can we get together and just hold each other tonight?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
no.
Wang.
Posts: 2,696
Threads: 47
Joined: Nov 2008
Reputation:
0
<!--quoteo(post=12842:date=Jan 21 2009, 04:05 PM:name=veryzer)-->QUOTE (veryzer @ Jan 21 2009, 04:05 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->no.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Touch nip to nip?
Posts: 3,011
Threads: 81
Joined: Dec 2008
Reputation:
0
<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->The pitching side of our system has admittedly approved the past few seasons, but what about position players? I don't see too many of those on your list and I'd ask for you to go back before Soto and give me some names if I thought such a task was possible.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What kind of argument is that Brock? "The Cubs minor league system is no good. Eliminate all the good guys they drafted, and what are you left with?"
You can't indict the whole system because they didn't draft well on one side of the ball. Yes, before Soto came along, their position player record was awful. But the Cubs stressed pitching in the draft, and developed a number of good to great pitchers. Do you know how many teams would kill to draft Zambrano? Wood? Even Prior? And that is putting aside all of the good other arms mentioned before, and even guys like Wellemeyer, Sisco, Mitre, etc.
The system is in trouble now, but it's been pretty good for the last few years.
I wish that I believed in Fate. I wish I didn't sleep so late. I used to be carried in the arms of cheerleaders.
Posts: 1,436
Threads: 28
Joined: Dec 2008
Reputation:
0
<!--quoteo(post=12853:date=Jan 21 2009, 03:57 PM:name=BT)-->QUOTE (BT @ Jan 21 2009, 03:57 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <!--quotec-->The pitching side of our system has admittedly approved the past few seasons, but what about position players? I don't see too many of those on your list and I'd ask for you to go back before Soto and give me some names if I thought such a task was possible.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What kind of argument is that Brock? "The Cubs minor league system is no good. Eliminate all the good guys they drafted, and what are you left with?"
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well if that's your exaggeration of my argument then yours would look something like "The Cubs minor league system is pretty good because we've developed some good pitchers. Let's just discount the fact that we can't develop position players entirely and just focus on the positives."
What's wrong with looking at the success of the system in its entirety? Why is it wrong to question why we can't ever seem to be able to develop position players?
Posts: 7,162
Threads: 138
Joined: Nov 2008
Reputation:
0
Has anybody mentioned Marmol yet and our decision to turn him into a pitcher? Sort of a big deal considering he's arguably the nastiest pitcher in the game just a few years later.
@TheBlogfines
Posts: 4,684
Threads: 78
Joined: Dec 2008
Reputation:
0
bt hit it on the head. the cubs purposely stocked the minors with pitchers. it's a smart move because pitchers are what other teams need. zambrano, wood, prior, marmol, cruz, nolasco, marshall, gallagher and even guys like farnsworth and wuertz have had success. you could even throw rich hills name in there because i believe his problems are mental and not due to lack of skill.
not many position players, but that may not have been the priority.
Wang.
Posts: 1,792
Threads: 49
Joined: Dec 2008
Reputation:
0
<!--quoteo(post=12872:date=Jan 21 2009, 04:52 PM:name=Brock)-->QUOTE (Brock @ Jan 21 2009, 04:52 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=12853:date=Jan 21 2009, 03:57 PM:name=BT)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BT @ Jan 21 2009, 03:57 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <!--quotec-->The pitching side of our system has admittedly approved the past few seasons, but what about position players? I don't see too many of those on your list and I'd ask for you to go back before Soto and give me some names if I thought such a task was possible.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What kind of argument is that Brock? "The Cubs minor league system is no good. Eliminate all the good guys they drafted, and what are you left with?"
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well if that's your exaggeration of my argument then yours would look something like "The Cubs minor league system is pretty good because we've developed some good pitchers. Let's just discount the fact that we can't develop position players entirely and just focus on the positives."
What's wrong with looking at the success of the system in its entirety? Why is it wrong to question why we can't ever seem to be able to develop position players?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
13 out of 22 1st round picks going back 15 years were for pitchers. Between 94 and 97 there were 4 consecutive picks for pitchers. Between 2001 and 2002 there were 5 consecutive picks for pitchers.
Up until the past couple seasons the Cubs have focused more on drafting pitchers then position players, hence why we haven't churned out quality position players as frequently as what you might perceive to be acceptable.
If Angelo had picked McClellin, I would have been expecting to hear by training camp that kid has stage 4 cancer, is actually 5'2" 142 lbs, is a chick who played in a 7 - 0 defensive scheme who only rotated in on downs which were 3 and 34 yds + so is not expecting to play a down in the NFL until the sex change is complete and she puts on another 100 lbs. + but this is Emery's first pick so he'll get a pass with a bit of questioning. - 1060Ivy
Posts: 4,684
Threads: 78
Joined: Dec 2008
Reputation:
0
<!--quoteo(post=12879:date=Jan 21 2009, 05:16 PM:name=bz)-->QUOTE (bz @ Jan 21 2009, 05:16 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=12872:date=Jan 21 2009, 04:52 PM:name=Brock)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Brock @ Jan 21 2009, 04:52 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=12853:date=Jan 21 2009, 03:57 PM:name=BT)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BT @ Jan 21 2009, 03:57 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <!--quotec-->The pitching side of our system has admittedly approved the past few seasons, but what about position players? I don't see too many of those on your list and I'd ask for you to go back before Soto and give me some names if I thought such a task was possible.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What kind of argument is that Brock? "The Cubs minor league system is no good. Eliminate all the good guys they drafted, and what are you left with?"
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well if that's your exaggeration of my argument then yours would look something like "The Cubs minor league system is pretty good because we've developed some good pitchers. Let's just discount the fact that we can't develop position players entirely and just focus on the positives."
What's wrong with looking at the success of the system in its entirety? Why is it wrong to question why we can't ever seem to be able to develop position players?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
13 out of 22 1st round picks going back 15 years were for pitchers. Between 94 and 97 there were 4 consecutive picks for pitchers. Between 2001 and 2002 there were 5 consecutive picks for pitchers.
Up until the past couple seasons the Cubs have focused more on drafting pitchers then position players, hence why we haven't churned out quality position players as frequently as what you might perceive to be acceptable.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
so i agreed with bt and you agreed with me? sounds like a circle triangle.
Wang.
Posts: 1,792
Threads: 49
Joined: Dec 2008
Reputation:
0
<!--quoteo(post=12883:date=Jan 21 2009, 05:22 PM:name=veryzer)-->QUOTE (veryzer @ Jan 21 2009, 05:22 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=12879:date=Jan 21 2009, 05:16 PM:name=bz)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (bz @ Jan 21 2009, 05:16 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=12872:date=Jan 21 2009, 04:52 PM:name=Brock)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Brock @ Jan 21 2009, 04:52 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=12853:date=Jan 21 2009, 03:57 PM:name=BT)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BT @ Jan 21 2009, 03:57 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <!--quotec-->The pitching side of our system has admittedly approved the past few seasons, but what about position players? I don't see too many of those on your list and I'd ask for you to go back before Soto and give me some names if I thought such a task was possible.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What kind of argument is that Brock? "The Cubs minor league system is no good. Eliminate all the good guys they drafted, and what are you left with?"
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well if that's your exaggeration of my argument then yours would look something like "The Cubs minor league system is pretty good because we've developed some good pitchers. Let's just discount the fact that we can't develop position players entirely and just focus on the positives."
What's wrong with looking at the success of the system in its entirety? Why is it wrong to question why we can't ever seem to be able to develop position players?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
13 out of 22 1st round picks going back 15 years were for pitchers. Between 94 and 97 there were 4 consecutive picks for pitchers. Between 2001 and 2002 there were 5 consecutive picks for pitchers.
Up until the past couple seasons the Cubs have focused more on drafting pitchers then position players, hence why we haven't churned out quality position players as frequently as what you might perceive to be acceptable.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
so i agreed with bt and you agreed with me? sounds like a circle triangle.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You can be the obtuse angle.
If Angelo had picked McClellin, I would have been expecting to hear by training camp that kid has stage 4 cancer, is actually 5'2" 142 lbs, is a chick who played in a 7 - 0 defensive scheme who only rotated in on downs which were 3 and 34 yds + so is not expecting to play a down in the NFL until the sex change is complete and she puts on another 100 lbs. + but this is Emery's first pick so he'll get a pass with a bit of questioning. - 1060Ivy
Posts: 1,719
Threads: 102
Joined: Dec 2008
Reputation:
0
<!--quoteo(post=12883:date=Jan 21 2009, 06:22 PM:name=veryzer)-->QUOTE (veryzer @ Jan 21 2009, 06:22 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=12879:date=Jan 21 2009, 05:16 PM:name=bz)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (bz @ Jan 21 2009, 05:16 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=12872:date=Jan 21 2009, 04:52 PM:name=Brock)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Brock @ Jan 21 2009, 04:52 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=12853:date=Jan 21 2009, 03:57 PM:name=BT)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BT @ Jan 21 2009, 03:57 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <!--quotec-->The pitching side of our system has admittedly approved the past few seasons, but what about position players? I don't see too many of those on your list and I'd ask for you to go back before Soto and give me some names if I thought such a task was possible.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What kind of argument is that Brock? "The Cubs minor league system is no good. Eliminate all the good guys they drafted, and what are you left with?"
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well if that's your exaggeration of my argument then yours would look something like "The Cubs minor league system is pretty good because we've developed some good pitchers. Let's just discount the fact that we can't develop position players entirely and just focus on the positives."
What's wrong with looking at the success of the system in its entirety? Why is it wrong to question why we can't ever seem to be able to develop position players?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
13 out of 22 1st round picks going back 15 years were for pitchers. Between 94 and 97 there were 4 consecutive picks for pitchers. Between 2001 and 2002 there were 5 consecutive picks for pitchers.
Up until the past couple seasons the Cubs have focused more on drafting pitchers then position players, hence why we haven't churned out quality position players as frequently as what you might perceive to be acceptable.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
so i agreed with bt and you agreed with me? sounds like a circle triangle.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think you all should get together and pull on tiny tom.
I'm 100% fine with this. I'm just glad there's an actual plan in place that isn't, "Let's load up on retreads and hope we get lucky." I'm a little tired of that plan.
Butcher
Posts: 676
Threads: 15
Joined: Nov 2008
Reputation:
0
Theriot, Fontenot, and Soto will all be starters produced by the Cubs. Zambrano, Marshall, Wuertz, Guzman, Marmol all have a decent shot of being on the team. Lee, Ramirez, Harden and Gaudin were aquired using minor leaguers. Dempster was a reclamation project. Lilly, Fukudome, Bradley, and Soriano were free agents.
"Drink Up and Beat Off!"
-KBWSB
"Will I be looked on poorly if my religion involved punting little people?"
-Jody
Posts: 4,641
Threads: 210
Joined: Oct 2008
Reputation:
0
<!--quoteo(post=12873:date=Jan 21 2009, 05:56 PM:name=Clapp)-->QUOTE (Clapp @ Jan 21 2009, 05:56 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->Has anybody mentioned Marmol yet and our decision to turn him into a pitcher? Sort of a big deal considering he's arguably the nastiest pitcher in the game just a few years later.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Damn, that's a hell of a point.
Makes me wonder if there are any other prospects out there - not just Cubs - who could be dynamite major leaguers if they just had a chance on the other side.
Posts: 87
Threads: 6
Joined: Dec 2008
Reputation:
0
<!--quoteo(post=12896:date=Jan 21 2009, 06:47 PM:name=Ace)-->QUOTE (Ace @ Jan 21 2009, 06:47 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=12873:date=Jan 21 2009, 05:56 PM:name=Clapp)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Clapp @ Jan 21 2009, 05:56 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->Has anybody mentioned Marmol yet and our decision to turn him into a pitcher? Sort of a big deal considering he's arguably the nastiest pitcher in the game just a few years later.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Damn, that's a hell of a point.
Makes me wonder if there are any other prospects out there - not just Cubs - who could be dynamite major leaguers if they just had a chance on the other side.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There's at least one in the bigs that's better on the other side of the ball. Last year the Royals let Tony Pena Jr. pitch an inning in a blowout. He showcased a 91-94 mph 2 seamer that he was spotting on the corners, and a hard breaking curveball. Struck a couple of guys out. He would be a good pitcher, especially if they took the time to send him down to the minors. unfortunately Tony apparently does not want to pitch. Which is too bad, because he can't hit anything.
Posts: 959
Threads: 6
Joined: Dec 2008
Reputation:
0
<!--quoteo(post=12894:date=Jan 21 2009, 05:39 PM:name=savant)-->QUOTE (savant @ Jan 21 2009, 05:39 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->Theriot, Fontenot, and Soto will all be starters produced by the Cubs. Zambrano, Marshall, Wuertz, Guzman, Marmol all have a decent shot of being on the team. Lee, Ramirez, Harden and Gaudin were aquired using minor leaguers. Dempster was a reclamation project. Lilly, Fukudome, Bradley, and Soriano were free agents.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Fontenot was drafted by Baltimore and spent 3 or 4 years in their system. I wouldn't include him.
Just saying.
Some men are born mediocre, some men achieve mediocrity, and some men have mediocrity thrust upon them.
|
