Ranking the Farms

[PcB]

<!--quoteo(post=12989:date=Jan 22 2009, 09:02 AM:name=BT)-->QUOTE (BT @ Jan 22 2009, 09:02 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=12982:date=Jan 22 2009, 08:54 AM:name=PcB)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (PcB @ Jan 22 2009, 08:54 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->Railroaded might be to strong a word, but it's early and I don't feel like thinking.

I don't see how it can even be argued that we have one of the worst systems in baseball right now, and that's my whole point and that was my whole point yesterday.

The fact that we have produced some decent prospects and Z, Marmol, and whoever else is fine, but there is nobody even on the horizon (other then Vitters) of being able to be a legitimate star in our system. Pitcher or Hitter. That's a problem.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->


Putting aside the fact as to whether or not it can be argued that we have one of the worst systems in baseball right now, as I just said, arguing that our system is bad right now, and arguing that our system has been a failure are two COMPLETELY different arguments.

For instance take the Tigers last offseason. They had a pretty good system. They then traded pretty much everyone for Cabrera and Willis. So leaving 2007 they had a good system. Starting 2008, their farm system was one of the worst in the majors. The fact that they had a bad system starting in 2008 wasn't a result of failures though. The system had done EXACTLY what they wanted it to do. It supplied them with quality major leaguers.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Look up.

[Brock]

<!--quoteo(post=12985:date=Jan 22 2009, 08:57 AM:name=BT)-->QUOTE (BT @ Jan 22 2009, 08:57 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=12979:date=Jan 22 2009, 08:46 AM:name=Brock)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Brock @ Jan 22 2009, 08:46 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <!--quotec-->Secondly I said it was bullshit to say the system sucked because you guys decided we aren't going to count pitchers.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

No one, not me, not PcB, nor anyone else ever said such a thing.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Did you specifically say those words? No. But your argument strongly implied it. You argued our system was a failure. When I pointed out we have developed a number of pitchers, your response was that we haven't developed any hitters (other than the first catcher to start an all star game as a rookie). It's logical to then assume that if we have developed good pitchers, AND you still think that our minor league system is a failure, then the quality of the pitchers we have developed do not change your opinion of our system.

For the record, there is a difference between arguing that our system has been successful, as I believe it has, and arguing that it is good right now, which I don't believe it is.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Is it the word "failure" that bothers you? How about instead of using that word I say that I just don't think it's been good enough?

Let's try this - let's say that we want to put grades on our success at developing players. Half of that success would involve producing pitchers, and half of that success would involve producing position players. My grades would look something like... (I'm talking over the last decade or so)

Developing pitchers: B (Zambrano, Marmol, etc)
Developing position players: D (Soto, ???, Mark Grace is a while ago!)
Overall: C

I guess a "C" isn't really a failure but why is it wrong to want a little bit more than that?

[veryzer]

our farm system is responsible for zambrano, harden, marshall, marmol, wood, gaudin, samardjzia, gregg, soto, lee, theriot, ramirez, hoffpauir, cedeno, and hopefully peavy. without those players, we'd have been nowhere the last two years and nowhere this year. to me, thats a successful farm system. in fact, take out wood and peavy and our farm system is still responsible for over half the 25 man roster.

[Brock]

The other thing that kind of bothers me about using trade acquisitions as proof of success of a minor league system is that in many of those cases those players were acquired because of the failure of our own prospects that couldn't get the job done.

[PcB]

<!--quoteo(post=13000:date=Jan 22 2009, 10:04 AM:name=Brock)-->QUOTE (Brock @ Jan 22 2009, 10:04 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->The other thing that kind of bothers me about using trade acquisitions as proof of success of a minor league system is that in many of those cases those players were acquired because of the failure of our own prospects that couldn't get the job done.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

And really none of the prospects we traded for these players have been all that great.

[BT]

<!--quoteo(post=13000:date=Jan 22 2009, 10:04 AM:name=Brock)-->QUOTE (Brock @ Jan 22 2009, 10:04 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->The other thing that kind of bothers me about using trade acquisitions as proof of success of a minor league system is that in many of those cases those players were acquired because of the failure of our own prospects that couldn't get the job done.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->


It doesn't matter WHY those players were acquired. The minor league system's job is to provide the major league team with talent. The Cubs system has been doing that. I'd argue the system has been doing it better than most teams.

[rok]

<!--quoteo(post=13002:date=Jan 22 2009, 10:17 AM:name=BT)-->QUOTE (BT @ Jan 22 2009, 10:17 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=13000:date=Jan 22 2009, 10:04 AM:name=Brock)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Brock @ Jan 22 2009, 10:04 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->The other thing that kind of bothers me about using trade acquisitions as proof of success of a minor league system is that in many of those cases those players were acquired because of the failure of our own prospects that couldn't get the job done.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->


It doesn't matter WHY those players were acquired. The minor league system's job is to provide the major league team with talent. The Cubs system has been doing that. I'd argue the system has been doing it better than most teams.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If anything, you could argue that the system is overachieving in producing talent in one way or another for the ML club. Now, whether this will continue for long is another story, but it's done the job in the past.

I'm not happy with the amount of talent we have down there, but I'm willing to see how things develop in the next few years.

[bz]

Basically, Brock has a different philosophy of what a farm system is supposed to be used for than what PcB, BT, Tom, Ruby and I think.

Before free agency and before massive amounts of trading started taking place a farm system was mainly for developing the core of a team. But today's game has changed. There is way more to baseball than there was 30 years ago. Teams in small markets can stock up on high yield prospects and hope they all pan out at the same time (Marlins, Twins and Rays) or teams in big markets can trade their pieces for established, higher salary players. It depends on the organization's philosophy and their market how the farm system is utilized. Our record since 2001 is 659-637. While clearly that is not that great and there is little to show for it success-wise, we have still been a winning club for 8 years. Based on that, and all the players our system has netted us or came up for us, I'd say ours is functioning respectably.

To put it in another perspective, look at the Royals over the same span, look at what they've produced internally and what they've got in trades from their system. Ours is light-years ahead of theirs.

[Scarey]

What's funny is the Cubs system may not be all that bad either.

When these rankings come out, they really only take into account either high profile prospects (like Vitters) or prospects that have produced at a high level in the minors (like Pie).

They don't take into account the younger players that have a high ceiling but are under the radar. The Cubs have a lot of those types like:

Jay Jackson
Dae-Eun Rhee
Wellington Castillo
Marquez Smith
Josh Harrison
Ryan Flaherty
Andrew Rundle
Matt Cerda
Hak-ju Lee

Now, these guys are all young and could end up being anywhere from fantastic to garbage, and that's why they don't think of them when considering these rankings. But my point is next year people could be raving about the Cubs system if some of these guys have good years.

[Clapp]

<!--quoteo(post=13002:date=Jan 22 2009, 09:17 AM:name=BT)-->QUOTE (BT @ Jan 22 2009, 09:17 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=13000:date=Jan 22 2009, 10:04 AM:name=Brock)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Brock @ Jan 22 2009, 10:04 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->The other thing that kind of bothers me about using trade acquisitions as proof of success of a minor league system is that in many of those cases those players were acquired because of the failure of our own prospects that couldn't get the job done.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->


It doesn't matter WHY those players were acquired. The minor league system's job is to provide the major league team with talent. The Cubs system has been doing that. I'd argue the system has been doing it better than most teams.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Exactly.