sometimes deck chairs need to be rearranged

User avatar
Cubswin11
Hall of Fame
Posts: 25960
Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2008 8:17 pm
x 7749
x 5455

Re: sometimes deck chairs need to be rearranged

Postby Cubswin11 » Thu Nov 14, 2019 10:46 pm

Sammy Sofa wrote:Also: hoisting up Ian Happ like he's this amazing slam dunk argument in favor of McLeod being granted perpetual farm system Grand Poobah status is certainly something.

And, horsefeathers, let's face it, Schwarber, too.

Image

They’ve combined for 13.9 WAR, one is 25 and one is 26 going in to this season. Man I think you gotta recheck your expectations on draft/prospect outcomes.
0 x
Screw Pitchers

squally1313
All-Star
Posts: 3980
Joined: Sat Mar 24, 2007 7:34 pm
x 1243
x 1439

Re: sometimes deck chairs need to be rearranged

Postby squally1313 » Thu Nov 14, 2019 10:46 pm

Transmogrified Tiger wrote:
squally1313 wrote:You can debate how much credit Jason McLeod should get for developing Kris Bryant, college player of the year, or the one year Kyle Schwarber spent in the minors before he made it to the pros (or the year and a half for Ian Happ). I would argue not a lot, but that's easy to say because they turned into actual players.


The bigger feather in the cap for Schwarber and Happ is that both were considered substantial reaches on draft day, and McLeod's job is as much to get guys who don't need as much work as it is to improve the players they're able to get.


It's a little hard to track down 2015 draft predictions/pre-draft rankings, but FG had Happ going 11th instead of to us at 9. Another one had him at 17th. We may be getting into two separate discussions here. I assume based on this that McLeod was in charge of the draft as well as development, and so he gets credit for making those picks instead of, to use those previews, Daz Cameron or Jon Harris. But that still doesn't change the facts on his development skills, and if he gets credit for picking the right hitters those times, he gets marked down for all the pitchers he ended up on that didn't pan out.
0 x

User avatar
Transmogrified Tiger
Inner-Circle HOF
Posts: 56439
Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2003 4:23 pm
Location: Greater St. Louis
x 520
x 6904

Re: sometimes deck chairs need to be rearranged

Postby Transmogrified Tiger » Thu Nov 14, 2019 10:49 pm

squally1313 wrote:
Transmogrified Tiger wrote:
squally1313 wrote:You can debate how much credit Jason McLeod should get for developing Kris Bryant, college player of the year, or the one year Kyle Schwarber spent in the minors before he made it to the pros (or the year and a half for Ian Happ). I would argue not a lot, but that's easy to say because they turned into actual players.


The bigger feather in the cap for Schwarber and Happ is that both were considered substantial reaches on draft day, and McLeod's job is as much to get guys who don't need as much work as it is to improve the players they're able to get.


It's a little hard to track down 2015 draft predictions/pre-draft rankings, but FG had Happ going 11th instead of to us at 9. Another one had him at 17th. We may be getting into two separate discussions here. I assume based on this that McLeod was in charge of the draft as well as development, and so he gets credit for making those picks instead of, to use those previews, Daz Cameron or Jon Harris. But that still doesn't change the facts on his development skills, and if he gets credit for picking the right hitters those times, he gets marked down for all the pitchers he ended up on that didn't pan out.


For sure, he owns the end outcome, so he doesn't get more or less credit for making a good pick that doesn't need much development time.
0 x

User avatar
Sammy Sofa
Licks Butts
Posts: 82529
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 3:45 am
Location: Washington DC
x 13365
x 15810

Re: sometimes deck chairs need to be rearranged

Postby Sammy Sofa » Thu Nov 14, 2019 10:50 pm

Cubswin11 wrote:
Sammy Sofa wrote:Also: hoisting up Ian Happ like he's this amazing slam dunk argument in favor of McLeod being granted perpetual farm system Grand Poobah status is certainly something.

And, horsefeathers, let's face it, Schwarber, too.

Image

They’ve combined for 13.9 WAR, one is 25 and one is 26 going in to this season. Man I think you gotta recheck your expectations on draft/prospect outcomes.


The idea that they should be feathers in his cap is hinged on the end of last year, and you know it. And it would be great if that turns out to be the case long term, but come on; Happ especially is based on the tiniest of sample sizes. Both of these guys are still question marks to varying degrees right now.
0 x
► Show Spoiler

User avatar
Transmogrified Tiger
Inner-Circle HOF
Posts: 56439
Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2003 4:23 pm
Location: Greater St. Louis
x 520
x 6904

Re: sometimes deck chairs need to be rearranged

Postby Transmogrified Tiger » Thu Nov 14, 2019 10:59 pm

Sammy Sofa wrote:The idea that they should be feathers in his cap is hinged on the end of last year, and you know it. And it would be great if that turns out to be the case long term, but come on; Happ especially is based on the tiniest of sample sizes. Both of these guys are still question marks to varying degrees right now.


Of the Top 10 picks in Happ's draft, 6 of them either haven't made MLB or have provided negative bWAR in a brief amount of time. 5 for Schwarber's Top 10. That's the baseline, not whether the player was an especially good major leaguer.
2 x

squally1313
All-Star
Posts: 3980
Joined: Sat Mar 24, 2007 7:34 pm
x 1243
x 1439

Re: sometimes deck chairs need to be rearranged

Postby squally1313 » Thu Nov 14, 2019 11:09 pm

Transmogrified Tiger wrote:
Sammy Sofa wrote:The idea that they should be feathers in his cap is hinged on the end of last year, and you know it. And it would be great if that turns out to be the case long term, but come on; Happ especially is based on the tiniest of sample sizes. Both of these guys are still question marks to varying degrees right now.


Of the Top 10 picks in Happ's draft, 6 of them either haven't made MLB or have provided negative bWAR in a brief amount of time. 5 for Schwarber's Top 10. That's the baseline, not whether the player was an especially good major leaguer.


That's a little bit of an oversimplification, looking at Happ's draft. Yes, for where the Cubs were at the time it made sense to prioritize a more polished bat. But in those 6 you have Brendan Rogers and Kyle Tucker, both of which are much more valuable than Ian Happ.
0 x

User avatar
Transmogrified Tiger
Inner-Circle HOF
Posts: 56439
Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2003 4:23 pm
Location: Greater St. Louis
x 520
x 6904

Re: sometimes deck chairs need to be rearranged

Postby Transmogrified Tiger » Thu Nov 14, 2019 11:15 pm

squally1313 wrote:But in those 6 you have Brendan Rogers and Kyle Tucker, both of which are much more valuable than Ian Happ.


Agree to disagree, demonstrating you can make the leap to producing at the MLB level is the biggest jump, so even if they have higher ceilings(especially debatable for Tucker), I'm not going to simply assume they're on track to produce more.
1 x

User avatar
Sammy Sofa
Licks Butts
Posts: 82529
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 3:45 am
Location: Washington DC
x 13365
x 15810

Re: sometimes deck chairs need to be rearranged

Postby Sammy Sofa » Thu Nov 14, 2019 11:17 pm

squally1313 wrote:
Transmogrified Tiger wrote:
Sammy Sofa wrote:The idea that they should be feathers in his cap is hinged on the end of last year, and you know it. And it would be great if that turns out to be the case long term, but come on; Happ especially is based on the tiniest of sample sizes. Both of these guys are still question marks to varying degrees right now.


Of the Top 10 picks in Happ's draft, 6 of them either haven't made MLB or have provided negative bWAR in a brief amount of time. 5 for Schwarber's Top 10. That's the baseline, not whether the player was an especially good major leaguer.


That's a little bit of an oversimplification, looking at Happ's draft. Yes, for where the Cubs were at the time it made sense to prioritize a more polished bat. But in those 6 you have Brendan Rogers and Kyle Tucker, both of which are much more valuable than Ian Happ.


Happ and Schwarber are valuable players; I take issue with them being tossed out like they're proof that it's ludicrous to expect this FO to have someone running the farm who could, apparently inexplicably, both have an eye for offensive talent and could just barely competently handle the pitching development side of things. Like, "how dare you want to see someone other than the mastermind that found Schwarber and Ian Happ" is a tad much.
0 x
► Show Spoiler

User avatar
Cubswin11
Hall of Fame
Posts: 25960
Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2008 8:17 pm
x 7749
x 5455

Re: sometimes deck chairs need to be rearranged

Postby Cubswin11 » Thu Nov 14, 2019 11:33 pm

Sammy Sofa wrote:
squally1313 wrote:
Transmogrified Tiger wrote:
Of the Top 10 picks in Happ's draft, 6 of them either haven't made MLB or have provided negative bWAR in a brief amount of time. 5 for Schwarber's Top 10. That's the baseline, not whether the player was an especially good major leaguer.


That's a little bit of an oversimplification, looking at Happ's draft. Yes, for where the Cubs were at the time it made sense to prioritize a more polished bat. But in those 6 you have Brendan Rogers and Kyle Tucker, both of which are much more valuable than Ian Happ.


Happ and Schwarber are valuable players; I take issue with them being tossed out like they're proof that it's ludicrous to expect this FO to have someone running the farm who could, apparently inexplicably, both have an eye for offensive talent and could just barely competently handle the pitching development side of things. Like, "how dare you want to see someone other than the mastermind that found Schwarber and Ian Happ" is a tad much.

I mean everyone who’s on the other side of this has admitted they’ve lacked at the pitching side but also explained how their failings were also the more probable outcome when trying to develop pitching (especially SPs). The Happ/Schwarber stuff is just proving they are good at what they are good at and they picked a plan to go and were relatively successful with it. You can’t name names who would’ve been better outcomes than them if we picked different dudes over them. Ultimately I think the stance of some of us that your whole issue with or expedition of the FO is rather unrealistic when looking at the circumstances and around the league. When there’s a whopping 1 team (Dodgers) who you could say are actually pulling off what you want the FO to do.


I’m 100% on board with you that what you want is how things should be run and should be the goal of every team to work that way. I just think in reality it’s not how things actually run and turn out the vast majority of the time given so many variables.
Last edited by Cubswin11 on Thu Nov 14, 2019 11:44 pm, edited 2 times in total.
0 x
Screw Pitchers

User avatar
Cubswin11
Hall of Fame
Posts: 25960
Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2008 8:17 pm
x 7749
x 5455

Re: sometimes deck chairs need to be rearranged

Postby Cubswin11 » Thu Nov 14, 2019 11:36 pm

Transmogrified Tiger wrote:
squally1313 wrote:But in those 6 you have Brendan Rogers and Kyle Tucker, both of which are much more valuable than Ian Happ.


Agree to disagree, demonstrating you can make the leap to producing at the MLB level is the biggest jump, so even if they have higher ceilings(especially debatable for Tucker), I'm not going to simply assume they're on track to produce more.

Rodgers and Tucker were in AA and AAA and just barely getting a cup of coffee in MLB at the same age Happ was playing regularly, putting up positive WAR and helping us win the division. Today as trade chips sure Rodgers and Tucker are worth more, the shine certainly seems off of Tucker a bit though and to date Happ’s the only guys who’s actually contributed value in MLB. We also couldn’t have taken them over Happ anyways, as they went sooner.
0 x
Screw Pitchers

Bertz
All-Star
Posts: 1369
Joined: Thu Oct 19, 2017 2:59 pm
x 558
x 737

Re: sometimes deck chairs need to be rearranged

Postby Bertz » Fri Nov 15, 2019 1:08 am

Sammy Sofa wrote:
squally1313 wrote:
Transmogrified Tiger wrote:
Of the Top 10 picks in Happ's draft, 6 of them either haven't made MLB or have provided negative bWAR in a brief amount of time. 5 for Schwarber's Top 10. That's the baseline, not whether the player was an especially good major leaguer.


That's a little bit of an oversimplification, looking at Happ's draft. Yes, for where the Cubs were at the time it made sense to prioritize a more polished bat. But in those 6 you have Brendan Rogers and Kyle Tucker, both of which are much more valuable than Ian Happ.


Happ and Schwarber are valuable players; I take issue with them being tossed out like they're proof that it's ludicrous to expect this FO to have someone running the farm who could, apparently inexplicably, both have an eye for offensive talent and could just barely competently handle the pitching development side of things. Like, "how dare you want to see someone other than the mastermind that found Schwarber and Ian Happ" is a tad much.


I think the crux of this discussion is that you are arguing despite giving no indication that you understand what a draft on balance *should* net you. A draft that nets a team an everyday player or mid-rotation starter and one bench/pen guy is a solid success. That'll earn you a B grade. That is how hard this stuff is.

I assume the Astros are a team you have in mind when you think the team ought to have done better? Go look at their 2013 draft. The best player they got out of that draft was Tony Kemp, and that's a draft where they had the #1 overall pick. This stuff is HARD. McLeod's worst drafts are either 2012 (Almora, Bote, Underwood) or 2015 (Happ and a few guys who still might be relievers).

This org has problems. Lots of them. Amateur talent acquisition is like third from the bottom after Javy Baez and Yu Darvish's twitter account.
0 x

User avatar
Sammy Sofa
Licks Butts
Posts: 82529
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 3:45 am
Location: Washington DC
x 13365
x 15810

Re: sometimes deck chairs need to be rearranged

Postby Sammy Sofa » Fri Nov 15, 2019 1:18 am

Cubswin11 wrote:
Sammy Sofa wrote:
squally1313 wrote:
That's a little bit of an oversimplification, looking at Happ's draft. Yes, for where the Cubs were at the time it made sense to prioritize a more polished bat. But in those 6 you have Brendan Rogers and Kyle Tucker, both of which are much more valuable than Ian Happ.


Happ and Schwarber are valuable players; I take issue with them being tossed out like they're proof that it's ludicrous to expect this FO to have someone running the farm who could, apparently inexplicably, both have an eye for offensive talent and could just barely competently handle the pitching development side of things. Like, "how dare you want to see someone other than the mastermind that found Schwarber and Ian Happ" is a tad much.

I mean everyone who’s on the other side of this has admitted they’ve lacked at the pitching side but also explained how their failings were also the more probable outcome when trying to develop pitching (especially SPs). The Happ/Schwarber stuff is just proving they are good at what they are good at and they picked a plan to go and were relatively successful with it. You can’t name names who would’ve been better outcomes than them if we picked different dudes over them. Ultimately I think the stance of some of us that your whole issue with or expedition of the FO is rather unrealistic when looking at the circumstances and around the league. When there’s a whopping 1 team (Dodgers) who you could say are actually pulling off what you want the FO to do.


I’m 100% on board with you that what you want is how things should be run and should be the goal of every team to work that way. I just think in reality it’s not how things actually run and turn out the vast majority of the time given so many variables.


Well, sure we can; there's the Astros, too. Except they did the whole, "horsefeathers drafting pitchers; we'll get them other ways," much better. The FO has a bumpy track record with acquiring pitchers beyond just their time with the Cubs, so that was an inherent added risk to the choice they made, and now pitching-wise they're kinda with their backs to wall. Yes, obviously, nobody is disputing how it paid off in 2016, but now it's been an ongoing issue that have to deal with the effects of immediately, and that just further exacerbates how iffy they are with signing/trading for pitching. It's not unreasonable to want them to be just even a little better at handling the pitching development than how terrible they have been for years.
0 x
► Show Spoiler

User avatar
Sammy Sofa
Licks Butts
Posts: 82529
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 3:45 am
Location: Washington DC
x 13365
x 15810

Re: sometimes deck chairs need to be rearranged

Postby Sammy Sofa » Fri Nov 15, 2019 1:23 am

Bertz wrote:
Sammy Sofa wrote:
squally1313 wrote:
That's a little bit of an oversimplification, looking at Happ's draft. Yes, for where the Cubs were at the time it made sense to prioritize a more polished bat. But in those 6 you have Brendan Rogers and Kyle Tucker, both of which are much more valuable than Ian Happ.


Happ and Schwarber are valuable players; I take issue with them being tossed out like they're proof that it's ludicrous to expect this FO to have someone running the farm who could, apparently inexplicably, both have an eye for offensive talent and could just barely competently handle the pitching development side of things. Like, "how dare you want to see someone other than the mastermind that found Schwarber and Ian Happ" is a tad much.


I think the crux of this discussion is that you are arguing despite giving no indication that you understand what a draft on balance *should* net you. A draft that nets a team an everyday player or mid-rotation starter and one bench/pen guy is a solid success. That'll earn you a B grade. That is how hard this stuff is.

I assume the Astros are a team you have in mind when you think the team ought to have done better? Go look at their 2013 draft. The best player they got out of that draft was Tony Kemp, and that's a draft where they had the #1 overall pick. This stuff is HARD. McLeod's worst drafts are either 2012 (Almora, Bote, Underwood) or 2015 (Happ and a few guys who still might be relievers).

This org has problems. Lots of them. Amateur talent acquisition is like third from the bottom after Javy Baez and Yu Darvish's twitter account.


Enough with the "oh, you just don't get it, man" horse horsefeathers; I'm not going out on a limb by being critical of how badly their pitching development has gone. It's opinions like yours that are flying in the wind of the overwhelming consensus that the Cubs botched this side of things, and for a prolonged period. You keep trying to make it sound like I'm being unreasonable wanting their pitching development to be better than TERRIBLE, which is ridiculous. This org doesn't live and die by Jason McLeod, and this FO should be smart enough to figure out how to develop players under someone else's watch, or if they can't stand parting with him then put this critical part of things under the care of someone else. They can't afford for things to just be maybe looking up at this point; having laid a damn goose egg with the pitching is going to make it more likely that the window smashes shut.
0 x
► Show Spoiler

User avatar
Cubswin11
Hall of Fame
Posts: 25960
Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2008 8:17 pm
x 7749
x 5455

Re: sometimes deck chairs need to be rearranged

Postby Cubswin11 » Fri Nov 15, 2019 1:28 am

Sammy Sofa wrote:
Cubswin11 wrote:
Sammy Sofa wrote:
Happ and Schwarber are valuable players; I take issue with them being tossed out like they're proof that it's ludicrous to expect this FO to have someone running the farm who could, apparently inexplicably, both have an eye for offensive talent and could just barely competently handle the pitching development side of things. Like, "how dare you want to see someone other than the mastermind that found Schwarber and Ian Happ" is a tad much.

I mean everyone who’s on the other side of this has admitted they’ve lacked at the pitching side but also explained how their failings were also the more probable outcome when trying to develop pitching (especially SPs). The Happ/Schwarber stuff is just proving they are good at what they are good at and they picked a plan to go and were relatively successful with it. You can’t name names who would’ve been better outcomes than them if we picked different dudes over them. Ultimately I think the stance of some of us that your whole issue with or expedition of the FO is rather unrealistic when looking at the circumstances and around the league. When there’s a whopping 1 team (Dodgers) who you could say are actually pulling off what you want the FO to do.


I’m 100% on board with you that what you want is how things should be run and should be the goal of every team to work that way. I just think in reality it’s not how things actually run and turn out the vast majority of the time given so many variables.


Well, sure we can; there's the Astros, too. Except they did the whole, "horsefeathers drafting pitchers; we'll get them other ways," much better.

Are we sure about that moving forward? Whitley took a massive step back this year, their depth was so bad they were bullpenning games after 3 starters (all of whom were acquired externally) in the playoffs and their 4 leverage RPs Osuna, Smith, Harris and Pressly were all guys acquired externally. They also had to take the dive on acquiring 35 year old Greinke at 3 years and $80 million or whatever it is because of the outlook. They were the darlings for a while but they aren’t in all that great of spot. They have as many WS to show for us with the same pitching acquisition philosophy and aren’t looking all that much better long term.
0 x
Screw Pitchers

User avatar
Sammy Sofa
Licks Butts
Posts: 82529
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 3:45 am
Location: Washington DC
x 13365
x 15810

Re: sometimes deck chairs need to be rearranged

Postby Sammy Sofa » Fri Nov 15, 2019 1:30 am

Cubswin11 wrote:
Sammy Sofa wrote:
Cubswin11 wrote:I mean everyone who’s on the other side of this has admitted they’ve lacked at the pitching side but also explained how their failings were also the more probable outcome when trying to develop pitching (especially SPs). The Happ/Schwarber stuff is just proving they are good at what they are good at and they picked a plan to go and were relatively successful with it. You can’t name names who would’ve been better outcomes than them if we picked different dudes over them. Ultimately I think the stance of some of us that your whole issue with or expedition of the FO is rather unrealistic when looking at the circumstances and around the league. When there’s a whopping 1 team (Dodgers) who you could say are actually pulling off what you want the FO to do.


I’m 100% on board with you that what you want is how things should be run and should be the goal of every team to work that way. I just think in reality it’s not how things actually run and turn out the vast majority of the time given so many variables.


Well, sure we can; there's the Astros, too. Except they did the whole, "horsefeathers drafting pitchers; we'll get them other ways," much better.

Are we sure about that moving forward? Whitley took a massive step back this year, their depth was so bad they were bullpenning games after 3 starters (all of whom were acquired externally) in the playoffs and their 4 leverage RPs Osuna, Smith, Harris and Pressly were all guys acquired externally. They also had to take the dive on acquiring 35 year old Greinke at 3 years and $80 million or whatever it is because of the outlook. They were the darlings for a while but they aren’t in all that great of spot. They have as many WS to show for us with the same pitching acquisition philosophy and aren’t looking all that much better long term.


Yes, I am very sure that the Astros outside pitching pickups (especially their starters) contributed to them being appreciably more competitive post-their WS win than the Cubs have been (due in no small part to their pitching moves).
0 x
► Show Spoiler

User avatar
Cubswin11
Hall of Fame
Posts: 25960
Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2008 8:17 pm
x 7749
x 5455

Re: sometimes deck chairs need to be rearranged

Postby Cubswin11 » Fri Nov 15, 2019 1:43 am

Sammy Sofa wrote:
Cubswin11 wrote:
Sammy Sofa wrote:
Well, sure we can; there's the Astros, too. Except they did the whole, "horsefeathers drafting pitchers; we'll get them other ways," much better.

Are we sure about that moving forward? Whitley took a massive step back this year, their depth was so bad they were bullpenning games after 3 starters (all of whom were acquired externally) in the playoffs and their 4 leverage RPs Osuna, Smith, Harris and Pressly were all guys acquired externally. They also had to take the dive on acquiring 35 year old Greinke at 3 years and $80 million or whatever it is because of the outlook. They were the darlings for a while but they aren’t in all that great of spot. They have as many WS to show for us with the same pitching acquisition philosophy and aren’t looking all that much better long term.


Yes, I am very sure that the Astros outside pitching pickups (especially their starters) contributed to them being appreciably more competitive post-their WS win than the Cubs have been (due in no small part to their pitching moves).

Post WS win they did better than us in the acquisitions performing but they still didn’t win another WS and I think you could make an argument from 2020 on the teams are pretty close pitching wise (assuming they don’t bring Cole back).
0 x
Screw Pitchers

User avatar
Sammy Sofa
Licks Butts
Posts: 82529
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 3:45 am
Location: Washington DC
x 13365
x 15810

Re: sometimes deck chairs need to be rearranged

Postby Sammy Sofa » Fri Nov 15, 2019 1:53 am

Cubswin11 wrote:
Sammy Sofa wrote:
Cubswin11 wrote:Are we sure about that moving forward? Whitley took a massive step back this year, their depth was so bad they were bullpenning games after 3 starters (all of whom were acquired externally) in the playoffs and their 4 leverage RPs Osuna, Smith, Harris and Pressly were all guys acquired externally. They also had to take the dive on acquiring 35 year old Greinke at 3 years and $80 million or whatever it is because of the outlook. They were the darlings for a while but they aren’t in all that great of spot. They have as many WS to show for us with the same pitching acquisition philosophy and aren’t looking all that much better long term.


Yes, I am very sure that the Astros outside pitching pickups (especially their starters) contributed to them being appreciably more competitive post-their WS win than the Cubs have been (due in no small part to their pitching moves).

Post WS win they did better than us in the acquisitions performing but they still didn’t win another WS and I think you could make an argument from 2020 on the teams are pretty close pitching wise (assuming they don’t bring Cole back).


Maybe the Cubs could squeeze back into that middle ground between desperately scraping into the WC and then getting bounced/not making the playoffs and winning the WS.

I mean, contrary to how I come across, I'm not looking at this as WS or bust.
0 x
► Show Spoiler

User avatar
Cubswin11
Hall of Fame
Posts: 25960
Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2008 8:17 pm
x 7749
x 5455

Re: sometimes deck chairs need to be rearranged

Postby Cubswin11 » Fri Nov 15, 2019 2:01 am

Sammy Sofa wrote:
Cubswin11 wrote:
Sammy Sofa wrote:
Yes, I am very sure that the Astros outside pitching pickups (especially their starters) contributed to them being appreciably more competitive post-their WS win than the Cubs have been (due in no small part to their pitching moves).

Post WS win they did better than us in the acquisitions performing but they still didn’t win another WS and I think you could make an argument from 2020 on the teams are pretty close pitching wise (assuming they don’t bring Cole back).


Maybe the Cubs could squeeze back into that middle ground between desperately scraping into the WC and then getting bounced/not making the playoffs and winning the WS.

I mean, contrary to how I come across, I'm not looking at this as WS or bust.

Either am I and we gave ourselves a pretty decent chance in 2017 and 18, IMO. More or less was just pointing out the vaunted pitching Astros aren’t all that much in better shape moving forward and their big all in years didn’t payoff anymore than us really.
0 x
Screw Pitchers

User avatar
Sammy Sofa
Licks Butts
Posts: 82529
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 3:45 am
Location: Washington DC
x 13365
x 15810

Re: sometimes deck chairs need to be rearranged

Postby Sammy Sofa » Fri Nov 15, 2019 2:04 am

I get what you're saying; personally, I would have enjoyed the Cubs a LOT more if their seasons had played out like the Astros'.
1 x
► Show Spoiler

User avatar
Cubswin11
Hall of Fame
Posts: 25960
Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2008 8:17 pm
x 7749
x 5455

Re: sometimes deck chairs need to be rearranged

Postby Cubswin11 » Fri Nov 15, 2019 2:22 am

Sammy Sofa wrote:I get what you're saying; personally, I would have enjoyed the Cubs a LOT more if their seasons had played out like the Astros'.

Death by a million paper cuts for us the last 2-3 years vs the Astros death by a few gunshots since their WS, essentially.
1 x
Screw Pitchers

User avatar
Sammy Sofa
Licks Butts
Posts: 82529
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 3:45 am
Location: Washington DC
x 13365
x 15810

Re: sometimes deck chairs need to be rearranged

Postby Sammy Sofa » Fri Nov 15, 2019 2:31 am

Cubswin11 wrote:
Sammy Sofa wrote:I get what you're saying; personally, I would have enjoyed the Cubs a LOT more if their seasons had played out like the Astros'.

Death by a million paper cuts for us the last 2-3 years vs the Astros death by a few gunshots since their WS, essentially.


I feel like this should be some kind of personal philosophy test giving all of the ridiculous variables of how unlikable these two orgs have made themselves.
0 x
► Show Spoiler

Bertz
All-Star
Posts: 1369
Joined: Thu Oct 19, 2017 2:59 pm
x 558
x 737

Re: sometimes deck chairs need to be rearranged

Postby Bertz » Fri Nov 15, 2019 2:34 am

Sammy Sofa wrote:Enough with the "oh, you just don't get it, man" horse horsefeathers; I'm not going out on a limb by being critical of how badly their pitching development has gone. It's opinions like yours that are flying in the wind of the overwhelming consensus that the Cubs botched this side of things, and for a prolonged period. You keep trying to make it sound like I'm being unreasonable wanting their pitching development to be better than TERRIBLE, which is ridiculous. This org doesn't live and die by Jason McLeod, and this FO should be smart enough to figure out how to develop players under someone else's watch, or if they can't stand parting with him then put this critical part of things under the care of someone else. They can't afford for things to just be maybe looking up at this point; having laid a damn goose egg with the pitching is going to make it more likely that the window smashes shut.


Show me where I did this. Nowhere did I say that the team was anything less than bad at pitching for the first ~half of McLeod's tenure. I've been consistent in three things both today and when this same argument came up in the minors forum over the summer:

1. The vast majority of resources were poured into bats.
An average FO probably gets another 2-3 relievers and 1-2 SPs out of the resources they did allocate. That's a failure, but that's roughly the magnitude of failure we're talking about
2. Being as amazing as he was at drafting bats FAR outweighed how bad he was at pitching. McLeod's comparative advantage at bats led to far more surplus value than the "2-3 relievers and 1-2 SPs" his comparative disadvantage at pitchers cost. There's the core from the last few years, plus Soler, Gleyber, Eloy, Candelario, Paredes (a top 100 guy now), Bote. Caratini was acquired as an A-baller for James Russell, they get at least half credit on him. Nico, Davis, and Amaya are likely consensus top 100 guys currently. Seriously, McLeod's essentially averaged two Top 100 caliber guys per year, one foreign and one domestic, through his entire Cubs tenure. That is an INSANE rate of hits, and miles above what you'd consider the benchmark or expected value
3. Regardless of whether you agree on the first two points, the pitching problems were fixed literally years ago. The pitching improvement is not just speculative or on the upswing but it is good right now:



I know you don't follow this stuff that closely but every rotation there except Eugene has at least three very legitimate prospects (and Eugene is meant to be staffed ~50% by college draftees anyway).
1 x

User avatar
Sammy Sofa
Licks Butts
Posts: 82529
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 3:45 am
Location: Washington DC
x 13365
x 15810

Re: sometimes deck chairs need to be rearranged

Postby Sammy Sofa » Fri Nov 15, 2019 2:46 am

No, I don't live and die by the inner workings of the farm system, but it's simple enough to see the Cubs' system routinely ranked terribly. I just don't agree with the idea that anything can be declared "fixed" when they're this far behind the curve. "Fixed" would have mean we would have at least seen ONE horsefeathering pitcher contributing at the big league level at this point.

I also don't agree with the idea that McLeod is such a rarefied talent that it's tolerable for him to just tank the pitching system like he did without any accountability. Let the Brain Trust FO figure out someone else to take the job instead of talking like the farm system is do or die by Jason McLeod. We're seeing the results of what happen when a guy is all bat and no pitching; you can't just clobber your way to victory with a super aggressive offense propped up by shaky at best pitching, and I'm not confident in this FO being able to adequately address the perpetual pitching issues they're going to have through the next two seasons without trying something/someone new.
0 x
► Show Spoiler

User avatar
Cubswin11
Hall of Fame
Posts: 25960
Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2008 8:17 pm
x 7749
x 5455

Re: sometimes deck chairs need to be rearranged

Postby Cubswin11 » Fri Nov 15, 2019 7:41 am

Sammy Sofa wrote:and I'm not confident in this FO being able to adequately address the perpetual pitching issues they're going to have through the next two seasons without trying something/someone new.

They seem to very much be trying something(s) and someone(s) new going back ~2 years now with the changes made internally. Especially with the moves this and last offseason.
0 x
Screw Pitchers

User avatar
Sammy Sofa
Licks Butts
Posts: 82529
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 3:45 am
Location: Washington DC
x 13365
x 15810

Re: sometimes deck chairs need to be rearranged

Postby Sammy Sofa » Fri Nov 15, 2019 1:13 pm

Cubswin11 wrote:
Sammy Sofa wrote:and I'm not confident in this FO being able to adequately address the perpetual pitching issues they're going to have through the next two seasons without trying something/someone new.

They seem to very much be trying something(s) and someone(s) new going back ~2 years now with the changes made internally. Especially with the moves this and last offseason.


And here's hoping it actually pays off, because they're hosed if it doesn't. But declaring everything fixed when it's still a pretty damn big question mark as to when, where and who the Cubs will be able to upgrade their pitching
0 x
► Show Spoiler


Return to “Cubs Discussions”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests