Cub's Prospect Watch And Development Discussion Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.

Chris J

Chris Jelinek
Joined:
Jul 22, 2011
Posts:
609
Liked Posts:
139
Location:
Joliet
I worded that wrong, my bad. The guy that did the Cubs top 10 chat, (Cooper maybe?) said the Jimenez was considered as a top 10 prospect but they left him off for right now
 

DewsSox79

CCS Donator
Donator
Joined:
Apr 24, 2010
Posts:
29,061
Liked Posts:
7,246
That's an attitude I just can't understand. What I outlined isn't unrealistic and as I've said it's potentially pessimistic to what could actually happen. If people really believe shit's worse than I outlined it then what's the point in even talking about the cubs for the next 3+ years? Surely there is something better people could be doing with their lives that's far less depressing. If having 8 of the top 100 prospects doesn't excite people then what's the point in even being a cubs fan? It's like some here are so used to being miserable that they don't know any other way and that goes as far as to wanting everyone else to be as miserable as them. Will all of those players become stars? No. Will the front office make all the moves you want. Of course not. That's life. Shit wont always go your way. If someone can't find anything about the cubs that makes them excited then I got some insight for them. That person whether they realize it or not isn't a cubs fan. Again, I'm not saying you have to agree with every decision but how many "fans" here have said anything positive about literally anything the cubs have done? I don't know. This turned into a bit of a rant but I really don't get how some consider themselves fans and then are so perpetually negative. Part of being the fan is being a homer. I'd consider myself slightly optimistic in most cases rather than the full blown kool-aid drinking but if people want to drink the kool-aid why the hell not?

They will be irrelevant the next 3 years. The team is highly in debt and has one of the worst owners in sports. The MLB will end up stepping in at some point if this historic franchise doesn't start spending some money and also increasing revenues to be out of debt. If you think you are setup perfect to be a contender soon you are highly mistaken.
 

Jntg4

Fire Forum Moderator
Donator
Joined:
Apr 26, 2010
Posts:
26,017
Liked Posts:
3,297
Location:
Minnesota
My favorite teams
  1. Chicago White Sox
  2. Chicago Cubs
  1. Chicago Fire
  1. Chicago Bulls
  1. Chicago Bears
  1. Chicago Blackhawks
  1. Chicago State Cougars
  2. DePaul Blue Demons
  3. Illinois-Chicago Flames
  4. Loyola Ramblers
  5. Northern Illinois Huskies
  6. Northwestern Wildcats
They will be irrelevant the next 3 years. The team is highly in debt and has one of the worst owners in sports. The MLB will end up stepping in at some point if this historic franchise doesn't start spending some money and also increasing revenues to be out of debt. If you think you are setup perfect to be a contender soon you are highly mistaken.

Well I'm pretty sure the advertising plans that the city and rooftop owners have gotten in the way of would be a way of generating revenue.

It has been explained that through the purchase terms, they have to wait the whole 7 years before paying off that debt.
 

brett05

867-5309
Joined:
Apr 28, 2009
Posts:
27,226
Liked Posts:
-1,272
Location:
Hell
It has been explained that through the purchase terms, they have to wait the whole 7 years before paying off that debt.
So couldn't they just be "paying themselves" that money so that when 7 years is up, boom, here's a check and be done with it?
 

Jntg4

Fire Forum Moderator
Donator
Joined:
Apr 26, 2010
Posts:
26,017
Liked Posts:
3,297
Location:
Minnesota
My favorite teams
  1. Chicago White Sox
  2. Chicago Cubs
  1. Chicago Fire
  1. Chicago Bulls
  1. Chicago Bears
  1. Chicago Blackhawks
  1. Chicago State Cougars
  2. DePaul Blue Demons
  3. Illinois-Chicago Flames
  4. Loyola Ramblers
  5. Northern Illinois Huskies
  6. Northwestern Wildcats
So couldn't they just be "paying themselves" that money so that when 7 years is up, boom, here's a check and be done with it?

I'm no expert on the situation, but someone posted a more in-depth thing earlier and seemed to have a good understanding of the terms of the partnership from the article. I'm pretty sure that if they pay off any of it though, that Zell gets taxed and it voids the agreement.
 

SilenceS

Moderator
Staff member
Donator
Joined:
Apr 16, 2013
Posts:
21,672
Liked Posts:
9,485
Jimenez is 16 years old. He should not be in anyone top 20. International players are hard to rank. They all have talent. They all also have very little baseball smarts. They arent really taught fundamentals because thats not what gets them to be in the majors. Also, scouts are so up and down on players. Jimenez was not the number 1 to all teams. The Cubs also spent a lot because they believe this year class isnt as good. Well, the Yankees are going to go hard this year because they believe it is a strong class. Highly volatile scouting by teams on these types of players. It basically playing the lotto and hoping you hit.
 

Chris J

Chris Jelinek
Joined:
Jul 22, 2011
Posts:
609
Liked Posts:
139
Location:
Joliet
Jimenez was the number 1 to all scouting websites that I have seen (MLB, BA)
 

chibears55

Well-known member
Joined:
Apr 18, 2013
Posts:
13,554
Liked Posts:
1,924
Today’s list comes from Chris Crawford at MLB Draft Insider*(he also does draft work for ESPN). Crawford offers a scouting report on each of the listed prospects, and ranks the top 14 thusly:1. Javier Baez2. Kris Bryant3. Jorge Soler4. Albert Almora5. CJ Edwards6. Arismendy Alcantara7. Pierce Johnson8. Arodys Vizcaino9. Jeimer Candelario10. Eloy Jimenez11. Rob Zastryzny12. Dan Vogelbach13. Scott Frazier14. Neil Ramirez

@BleacherNationThere's another top Cubs prospect list to review and discuss (a top 14, to be precise): bleachernation.com/2014/01/15/for…

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I437 using Tapatalk
 

brett05

867-5309
Joined:
Apr 28, 2009
Posts:
27,226
Liked Posts:
-1,272
Location:
Hell
I'm no expert on the situation, but someone posted a more in-depth thing earlier and seemed to have a good understanding of the terms of the partnership from the article. I'm pretty sure that if they pay off any of it though, that Zell gets taxed and it voids the agreement.

Right. But why not put it into an account and earn interest?

Sent from my SCH-I200 using Tapatalk
 

beckdawg

Well-known member
Joined:
Oct 31, 2012
Posts:
11,722
Liked Posts:
3,723
Furthermore, you haven't paid attention to what you are calling as people being completely negative all of the time when in fact, I have stated that I gave the farm an "A" grade a while back, but think it's time to start making the "D+" grade I give the parent club to start moving that upwards and not solely relying on the farm.

Maybe you're right. Like I said that post turned into a bit of a rant. I just don't see the point in focusing on the negatives. We can't change them. I get your skepticism with issues like the OF. And if people don't want to shell out big money to go see them in person I totally agree. The product on the field isn't worth the price of tickets. But, tv costs you nothing you don't already pay in cable fees. Plus, this year you are going to start seeing more of the youth movement. It started with Lake and acquiring Arrieta and Strop. We should see Hendricks at some point. Baez will probably be up at some point as will Alcantara. That may be the end of the "big names" but the idea of seeing these younger guys is exciting to me. Maybe they are false hope with players like Vitters like you expect. But at least they are something new.
 

nickofypres

Super Nintendo Chalmers
Donator
Joined:
Jun 14, 2010
Posts:
7,127
Liked Posts:
3,077
Location:
Los Angeles, CA
My favorite teams
  1. Chicago White Sox
  1. Chicago Bulls
  1. Chicago Bears
  1. Chicago Blackhawks
  1. Toledo Rockets
They will be irrelevant the next 3 years. The team is highly in debt and has one of the worst owners in sports. The MLB will end up stepping in at some point if this historic franchise doesn't start spending some money and also increasing revenues to be out of debt. If you think you are setup perfect to be a contender soon you are highly mistaken.

Wouldn't bet on it.

Madoff bankrupted the Wilpons and Bud hasn't bailed them out yet, and they're BFFs with Selig.

EDIT: Nevermind Major League Baseball loaned the Mets $25 million in November 2010 to shore up their finances.
 
Last edited:

TL1961

Well-known member
Joined:
Apr 24, 2013
Posts:
32,315
Liked Posts:
18,804
Right. But why not put it into an account and earn interest?

Sent from my SCH-I200 using Tapatalk

Is this a serious comment?

Do you seriously think they have money sitting somewhere earning no return?
 

beckdawg

Well-known member
Joined:
Oct 31, 2012
Posts:
11,722
Liked Posts:
3,723
They will be irrelevant the next 3 years. The team is highly in debt and has one of the worst owners in sports. The MLB will end up stepping in at some point if this historic franchise doesn't start spending some money and also increasing revenues to be out of debt. If you think you are setup perfect to be a contender soon you are highly mistaken.

I don't really agree they are the worst owners in sports. Maybe I'm naive. But I believe the reports about the leveraged partnership being the reason they can't pay down debt and the debt in turn being the reason they have to limit the payroll. Everything about the sale with Zell was shady. Also, they have given Theo $105-110 mil in payroll the past 2 years which is more than enough to be competitive. It's not enough to turn an aging team with little farm near the majors quickly.

What bothers me is that people assume every move they make is malicious. Yes they've cut payroll but it's from players who were making more than they produced(Zambrano, and Marmol for example). The players they are tied to long term are Castro and Rizzo both who are young and have at least have shown potential to be better than average players. Yes they haven't signed many FA but they have attempted to sign impact pitchers in Sanchez and Tanaka as well as guys like Darvish and Ryu. I believe they have genuine plans to improve wrigely and the surrounding area to increase profits.

I don't really believe they intend to spend like the dodgers or yanks once the 7 year partnership with Zell is done. I think that was clear when they went after an analytic person like Theo. Plus, they come from a financial background so I find it hard to believe they see the yankee and dodgers spending as the intelligent way to build a team. With that being said, I believe when they are ready to bring in FAs they will be in the 3-8 range in terms of payroll which is more than enough money if your front office is good at their job.

Most of all, I believe these are moves that winning teams make. But winning doesn't happen over night. That is especially true when you're talking about sustained winning and not just a win at all cost mantra. The KC example I gave is exactly how prospects can turn an organization around in around 2 years. Many of them weren't very good. But they increased the overall talent of the team and that team should have a shot to make the playoffs over the next several years especially if they add any more talent via FA.

It takes faith in the team to believe in the long term plan which obviously few here seem to have. It's easy to be a fan when the team is winning. And I'm not even saying you have to be 100% behind their plan. However, at least keep an open mind. The majority of the players this front office has brought in have been better than expected. They have drafted well. They have found quality cheap players like Feldman. The big names they have gone after for the most part have been good. For example, Ryu, Darvish and Sanchez all would have been good pick ups had they been able to sign them. They haven't been perfect but show me a front office that is.
 

DewsSox79

CCS Donator
Donator
Joined:
Apr 24, 2010
Posts:
29,061
Liked Posts:
7,246
I don't really agree they are the worst owners in sports. Maybe I'm naive. But I believe the reports about the leveraged partnership being the reason they can't pay down debt and the debt in turn being the reason they have to limit the payroll. Everything about the sale with Zell was shady. Also, they have given Theo $105-110 mil in payroll the past 2 years which is more than enough to be competitive. It's not enough to turn an aging team with little farm near the majors quickly.

What bothers me is that people assume every move they make is malicious. Yes they've cut payroll but it's from players who were making more than they produced(Zambrano, and Marmol for example). The players they are tied to long term are Castro and Rizzo both who are young and have at least have shown potential to be better than average players. Yes they haven't signed many FA but they have attempted to sign impact pitchers in Sanchez and Tanaka as well as guys like Darvish and Ryu. I believe they have genuine plans to improve wrigely and the surrounding area to increase profits.

I don't really believe they intend to spend like the dodgers or yanks once the 7 year partnership with Zell is done. I think that was clear when they went after an analytic person like Theo. Plus, they come from a financial background so I find it hard to believe they see the yankee and dodgers spending as the intelligent way to build a team. With that being said, I believe when they are ready to bring in FAs they will be in the 3-8 range in terms of payroll which is more than enough money if your front office is good at their job.

Most of all, I believe these are moves that winning teams make. But winning doesn't happen over night. That is especially true when you're talking about sustained winning and not just a win at all cost mantra. The KC example I gave is exactly how prospects can turn an organization around in around 2 years. Many of them weren't very good. But they increased the overall talent of the team and that team should have a shot to make the playoffs over the next several years especially if they add any more talent via FA.

It takes faith in the team to believe in the long term plan which obviously few here seem to have. It's easy to be a fan when the team is winning. And I'm not even saying you have to be 100% behind their plan. However, at least keep an open mind. The majority of the players this front office has brought in have been better than expected. They have drafted well. They have found quality cheap players like Feldman. The big names they have gone after for the most part have been good. For example, Ryu, Darvish and Sanchez all would have been good pick ups had they been able to sign them. They haven't been perfect but show me a front office that is.

im on my phone so i cant write an essay but for one..sanchez, ryu, tanaka whoever doesnt fix this franchise as a whole. secondly...this supposed talent isnt a for sure thing and you are banking on a front office and ownership to construct a team to compete with the cards ( top 3 easily ran teams in the mlb) cincy, and pitt who are light years ahead of the cubs. ok so lets say 50% of the specs make it...lets say these 50% are studs...you still have no rotation mlb ready nor do you have a pitching farm. this franchise was in trouble day 1 of ownership with ricketts and it is looking worse.


Sent from my Rotary Phone using Tapatalk
 

DewsSox79

CCS Donator
Donator
Joined:
Apr 24, 2010
Posts:
29,061
Liked Posts:
7,246
Wouldn't bet on it.

Madoff bankrupted the Wilpons and Bud hasn't bailed them out yet, and they're BFFs with Selig.

EDIT: Nevermind Major League Baseball loaned the Mets $25 million in November 2010 to shore up their finances.

you better edit fucker. cubs also more historic than mets


Sent from my Rotary Phone using Tapatalk
 

beckdawg

Well-known member
Joined:
Oct 31, 2012
Posts:
11,722
Liked Posts:
3,723
im on my phone so i cant write an essay but for one..sanchez, ryu, tanaka whoever doesnt fix this franchise as a whole. secondly...this supposed talent isnt a for sure thing and you are banking on a front office and ownership to construct a team to compete with the cards ( top 3 easily ran teams in the mlb) cincy, and pitt who are light years ahead of the cubs. ok so lets say 50% of the specs make it...lets say these 50% are studs...you still have no rotation mlb ready nor do you have a pitching farm. this franchise was in trouble day 1 of ownership with ricketts and it is looking worse.


Sent from my Rotary Phone using Tapatalk

So because the cubs may not be a top 3 front office group they are the worst in sports? I'm not trying to sugar coat things. They have a long way to go. But, the players this front office has gone after have turned out to be as expected if not better at what 75% of the time? I mean look at where they "failed." You're talking about Stewart, Volstad though i'm not sure he was ever more than a throw in to get rid of Zambrano, and possibly Jackson if he doesn't rebound over the next 3 years. I'm trying to think of other players. Hairston wasn't particularly good yet they still landed a low level prospect out of him. Fujikawa got hurt so I'm not sure he counts. Baker was never healthy so again I'm not sure if he counts. If I'm missing anyone obvious here feel free to add.

You then contrast that with what they've done well. Almora looks every bit of the top pick they drafted him as. Bryant does as well. Soler has been slowed by injuries but the scouts still love him. Feldman was one of the better signings last year. Maholm was one of the better signings the year before. Schierholtz and Navarro were very good signings. The other players they actively targeted like Darvish, Ryu, and Sanchez have been what you would expect even though the cubs were unable to land them for various reasons. Strop and Arrieta may end up being a very good trade for the half year rental of Feldman. Wood has been a fantastic trade for Marshall thus far. Dejesus did what they payed him to. Rizzo for Cashner at this point is more even and I wonder about Cashner's long term health but I don't think you can say it was a bad move for either side at this point.

So, they clearly there decision making for the most part has been good when they've decided to go after players. Facts are rebuilding takes time. Look at the situation the Mets went through. They are another major market team who had debt issues. It's been 5-6 years since they were last competitive but their young guys are starting to hit the majors and things are turning around. KC and PIT were both teams that were long time losers but finally got the right group of players and are winning. Obviously it's different in that they can't spend as much plus both historically have made some bad trades instead of holding on to players but they finally got on the right track.

The question for me is as simple as this. Would you rather be where the 2013 cubs are from an organizational stand point or where they were when the Ricketts bought them? They were an 83 win team in 2009. However, they were a team on the decline not a team on the rise. This is evident by the fact they won 75 games the following year without the Ricketts scaling back payroll much. The next year the won 71. Ricketts then throw out Hendry and bring in the current FO and they win 61 games with heavy cuts to spending. As bad as this year was, they still won more games at 66. Many believe the 2014 team will suck worse than possibly the 2012 team. We'll see. But the prospects in the system are an indication of a team that will improve in the next 3-5 years rather than one that will get worse. You're going from the past 3 years pulling guys like Barney and Lake out of the farm team to guys who are regarded among the top 20 prospects in the game. Maybe those players disappoint but it's hard to imagine they can be much worse than Barney was.
 

beckdawg

Well-known member
Joined:
Oct 31, 2012
Posts:
11,722
Liked Posts:
3,723
http://mlbdraftinsider.com/2014/01/top-14-in-14-chicago-cubs/

Some might be interested in this. It's got a lot of the usual names but also talks about Scott Frazier, Rob Zastrynzy, Eloy Jimenez and Neil Ramirez who don't get nearly the publicity of the top tier guys. Crawford apparently holds Neil Ramirez in a similar light as me in that he says he can be a #3 if his command improves which is nice to hear considering he was an additional piece of the Garza trade.
 

CSF77

Well-known member
Joined:
Apr 16, 2013
Posts:
17,955
Liked Posts:
2,775
Location:
San Diego
First year info:

Baez: 18 AB .278/.278/.389 0 HR 1 RBI
Bryant 128 AB .336/.390/.688 9 HR 32 RBI
Almora: 140 AB .329/.331/.464 2 HR 19 RBI
Soler: 134 AB .299/.369/.463 5 HR 25 RBI

By far Bryant had the best 1st year.


2nd year:
Baez 293 AB .294/.346/.543 16 HR 46 RBI
Soler 210 AB .281/.343/.467 8 HR 35 RBI
Almora 249 AB .329/.376/.466 3 HR 23 RBI

If I had to guess Bryant's 2nd year will exceed these numbers also.

In hits alone: Bryant 43 hits in 128 AB's Soler 59 in 210. That is pretty significant.

He might even be a better pure hitter than Almora.

I'm betting he is up on the team in Sept if not sooner. It would be tempting to bring him up in S/T but 128 AB's is pushing it. Still I would not be surprised if he just went up and hit regardless.

He has rare talent.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top