It's started already
Michael J. Sacks
force.
Chicago fans always need someone to blame, it seems, and in the Cubs case,
it never starts with the players in the field.
Mike Sacks
Venkatesh Natarajan
Fine... but why are these the players on the field? Someone
does have to be held accountable for that. How come we don't have
Vladimir Guererro, for example, or at least *some* good home-grown
latino player? How many good home grown players have we produced in the
last 5 years, period? Not many...
How come the farm system hasn't produced crap? Here, I'm a little
leery of blaming Lynch -- there has, IMO, been some very talented players
in the Cubs system, and the failure to produce has been going on
for much longer than one GM now... And Lynch has drafted talented players
too...
I'm wondering if there are some serious instructional issues...
> Mike Sacks
>
>
Venkatesh Natarajan
v...@andrew.cmu.edu
The Jon Lieber of alt.sports.baseball.chicago-cubs
Michael J. Sacks
> Fine... but why are these the players on the field? Someone
> does have to be held accountable for that. How come we don't have
> Vladimir Guererro, for example, or at least *some* good home-grown
> latino player? How many good home grown players have we produced in the
> last 5 years, period? Not many...
In the last 5 years? Wood, Downs, Nieves, Glanville, Garland. Not a
great group, but not awful, and the next few years look decent.
As for why are these the players that are on the field, that's Ed Lynch's
decisions, not MacPhail's. The president of the team makes business
decisions more than baseball decisions. You can blame MacPhail partially
for hiring practices, coaching decisions, and team budget. I have a hard
time placing direct blame on him for Andrews/Greene at third base or a
lack of a bullpen.
> How come the farm system hasn't produced crap? Here, I'm a little
> leery of blaming Lynch -- there has, IMO, been some very talented players
> in the Cubs system, and the failure to produce has been going on
> for much longer than one GM now... And Lynch has drafted talented players
> too...
>
> I'm wondering if there are some serious instructional issues...
I wonder that too. However, our farm system may be in its best state ...
ever, which isn't saying much, except that there has been improvement in
the past 6 years.
I blame MacPhail partially for the last 6 years. However, I find it
annoying, childish, and hypocritical that once Ed Lynch has left, people
find a new scapegoat immediately without keeping the blame where it
rightfully belongs.
And you know what??? Where are all the Riggleman-haters now? I never
hear anyone lamenting the 1994-1999 teams faults anymore because of Riggs,
yet he was blasted here and in the media just as much as Lynch over those
5 years.
People keep passing the buck to whosever left to blame. I'll blame
MacPhail for the mistakes he's made, but he's not any more culpable today
than he was two days ago.
Mike Sacks
Aztec Princess
>
> Now that Ed Lynch is gone, the anti-MacPhail posts are coming out in full
> force.
>
> Chicago fans always need someone to blame, it seems, and in the Cubs case,
> it never starts with the players in the field.
Why would we ever do that, Mike? It's not like it's Aggie's fault he
gives up homeruns, or Sammy's fault he misses a ball or two or gasp!
even Gracie's fault that he's having a subpar year.
It was Ed's fault and now is Andy's fault. So there! :P
Roni
Member DBFC
<giggle>
Aztec Princess
> How come the farm system hasn't produced crap? Here, I'm a little
> leery of blaming Lynch --
Cause if you wanna point fingers, try Jim Hendry...he's the head Cubs
scout.
Putting blame on the farm system is a different & perhaps longer
arguement.
Roni
Member DBFC
David Geiser
100...@unix10.andrew.cmu.edu>,
Venkatesh Natarajan <v...@andrew.cmu.edu> wrote:
> I'm wondering if there are some serious instructional issues...
I've wondered about this for years, long before
Lynch and MacPhail were in charge. The thing is,
if this is true, it doesn't seem MacPhail has done
much to make it better, except perhaps in spots
(Lansing? And of course we now have Jeff Pentland).
Look at what is happening to the Cubs prospects who
did so great in Lansing. Choi and Goldbach moved
to Daytona and suddenly they forgot how to draw
a walk. Patterson has sputtered in West Tenn. This
could be coincidence, but it seems that all of
the Cubs position prospects that put up a decent
year or two hit a brick wall at some point in the
minors.
I wonder if the Cubs might need a complete
overhaul at Daytona, and a new batting coach at
West Tenn.
--
Dave Geiser
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Venkatesh Natarajan
> On Thu, 20 Jul 2000, Venkatesh Natarajan wrote:
>
>
> In the last 5 years? Wood, Downs, Nieves, Glanville, Garland. Not a
> great group, but not awful, and the next few years look decent.
>
> As for why are these the players that are on the field, that's Ed Lynch's
> decisions, not MacPhail's. The president of the team makes business
> decisions more than baseball decisions. You can blame MacPhail partially
> for hiring practices, coaching decisions, and team budget. I have a hard
> time placing direct blame on him for Andrews/Greene at third base or a
> lack of a bullpen.
>
I wasn't arguing that MacPhail deserves blame... actually, I think
he might be quite an improvement, but he had better look at the farm
system, as we note below...
I was simply arguing that pointing your fingers at the players (as
you seemed to want the fans to do) isn't going to be much help...
> > I'm wondering if there are some serious instructional issues...
>
> I wonder that too. However, our farm system may be in its best state ...
> ever, which isn't saying much, except that there has been improvement in
> the past 6 years.
>
So now it is only mostly useless instead of totally useless...
> I blame MacPhail partially for the last 6 years. However, I find it
> annoying, childish, and hypocritical that once Ed Lynch has left, people
> find a new scapegoat immediately without keeping the blame where it
> rightfully belongs.
>
I actually don't really blame MacPhail. He felt that the GM
should be let alone to his job, which is really the best way to go,
unless you want to do the GM job yourself. I guess I could blame
him for taking so long to see that Lynch wasn't up to the task, but
then after 1998, it would be easy to hesitate to fire Lynch...
What I do find interesting about MacPhail is that, of the deals
Lynch made, the only one he seemed to object to was the Felix Heredia
one??? He hated that deal, but not the Karchner one? Oh wait, I'm
complaining to the wrong person...
Now that MacPhail is the GM, he had better take a look at the
coaching down there...
> And you know what??? Where are all the Riggleman-haters now? I never
> hear anyone lamenting the 1994-1999 teams faults anymore because of Riggs,
> yet he was blasted here and in the media just as much as Lynch over those
> 5 years.
>
Hey, I wasn't a Riggleman hater... :) He was actually a decent
strategical manager, and would make a good bench coach or some such...
though his ability to handle a poor clubhouse situation left much to be
desired... Baylor could make a good manager somewhere, but he doesn't
seem to be right for this situation... a Jerry Manuel would be better...
if only he were available...
> People keep passing the buck to whosever left to blame. I'll blame
> MacPhail for the mistakes he's made, but he's not any more culpable today
> than he was two days ago.
>
> Mike Sacks
Michael Sacks
<v...@andrew.cmu.edu> wrote:
> I was simply arguing that pointing your fingers at the players (as
>you seemed to want the fans to do) isn't going to be much help...
Ok. And is pointing fingers at management going to be much help
either? =-)
>> I wonder that too. However, our farm system may be in its best state ...
>> ever, which isn't saying much, except that there has been improvement in
>> the past 6 years.
>
> So now it is only mostly useless instead of totally useless...
I expect that out of the 14 "starter" spots on the team (8 position, 5
starters, closer), that we already have Wood, Downs, Grace and
Girardi. In the next two to three years, I'd expect two of the many
Cubs pitching prospects to take over Tapani and Valdes spots, Nieves
to be our starting SS in 2002, Corey Patterson in CF or LF, perhaps R.
Brown, B. Brown or Matthews in LF, perhaps Zambrano or Farnsworth as a
closer, and even Kelton or Hinske taking over at 3rd eventually.
Obviously, not all of these will happen, but it looks like we'll have
a home-grown team in the next few years more than any other time in
recent memort.
>> I blame MacPhail partially for the last 6 years. However, I find it
>> annoying, childish, and hypocritical that once Ed Lynch has left, people
>> find a new scapegoat immediately without keeping the blame where it
>> rightfully belongs.
>>
>
> I actually don't really blame MacPhail. He felt that the GM
>should be let alone to his job, which is really the best way to go,
>unless you want to do the GM job yourself. I guess I could blame
>him for taking so long to see that Lynch wasn't up to the task, but
>then after 1998, it would be easy to hesitate to fire Lynch...
Lynch did a very good job from October of 1997 to March of 1998. He
just did an awful job from June of 1998 through March of 1999.
> What I do find interesting about MacPhail is that, of the deals
>Lynch made, the only one he seemed to object to was the Felix Heredia
>one??? He hated that deal, but not the Karchner one? Oh wait, I'm
>complaining to the wrong person...
Yep. And while Karchner has performed below everyone's expectations
by a lot, Garland has yet to succeed in the majors and was not
expected to make progress through the minors as quickly as he did.
At the time, given the two players and the Cubs situation, the trade
was an average one, perhaps below average considering it was known
Karchner has injury problems. It's only turned to awful because of
Karchner's complete underperformance and Garland's success working in
the Sox minor league system, not because of excessively poor
evaluation on Lynch's part.
For all we know, Garland would be the next Lance Dickson if he stayed
in the Cubs organization. Credit has to be given to the Sox minor
league coaches for his quick development.
Mike Sacks
Venkatesh Natarajan
> In article <Pine.SOL.3.96L.1000720095816.2806B-
> 100...@unix10.andrew.cmu.edu>,
> Venkatesh Natarajan <v...@andrew.cmu.edu> wrote:
>
> > I'm wondering if there are some serious instructional issues...
>
> I've wondered about this for years, long before
> Lynch and MacPhail were in charge. The thing is,
> if this is true, it doesn't seem MacPhail has done
> much to make it better, except perhaps in spots
> (Lansing? And of course we now have Jeff Pentland).
>
> Look at what is happening to the Cubs prospects who
> did so great in Lansing. Choi and Goldbach moved
> to Daytona and suddenly they forgot how to draw
> a walk. Patterson has sputtered in West Tenn. This
> could be coincidence, but it seems that all of
> the Cubs position prospects that put up a decent
> year or two hit a brick wall at some point in the
> minors.
>
Good points about the guys at Daytona.
I however wouldn't be so quick to judge the West Tennesee
performance. Not only is the entire league a pitchers league (only two
teams with a staff ERA above 4), but interestingly, the DJaxx team ERA is
tops in the league (2.99), and the team OPS is near the bottom of the
league (below .700), which suggests that the park is also a pitchers' park
in a pitchers' league... This also would partially explain how Mike
Meyers has taken a huge hit in ERA since going up to AAA. Note that Corey
Patterson's OPS is now about .800 -- that is actually well above league
average...
Granted, maybe the pitchers at WTenn are really that good and the
hitters are really that bad, but I'd love to see if there's a park effect
number for West Tennessee...
> I wonder if the Cubs might need a complete
> overhaul at Daytona, and a new batting coach at
> West Tenn.
>
>
> --
> Dave Geiser
>
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
>
User Name
(Michael Sacks) wrote:
> I expect that out of the 14 "starter" spots on the team (8 position, 5
> starters, closer), that we already have Wood, Downs, Grace and
> Girardi. In the next two to three years, I'd expect two of the many
> Cubs pitching prospects to take over Tapani and Valdes spots, Nieves
> to be our starting SS in 2002, Corey Patterson in CF or LF, perhaps R.
> Brown, B. Brown or Matthews in LF, perhaps Zambrano or Farnsworth as a
> closer, and even Kelton or Hinske taking over at 3rd eventually.
>
> Obviously, not all of these will happen, but it looks like we'll have
> a home-grown team in the next few years more than any other time in
> recent memort.
With all due respects Mike, it always looks like we'll have more home
grown guys in the future. A few years back, we were pencilling in
guys like Robin Jennings, Brooks Kieschnik, Amaury Telemaco,
Jeremi Gonzalez.
To look at your list specifically, Grace and Girardi may be home grown
but they are 80s guys. Downs looks somewhat promising but certainly
isn't a lock for the rotation of the future; he needs to improve at
least a little and improvement is never certain. Nieves might be a
starter but he doesn't look like one. As for LF, neither R. Brown
or Matthews is really home grown and B. Brown doesn't look like a
starter (nor do the other two frankly).
> Yep. And while Karchner has performed below everyone's expectations
> by a lot, Garland has yet to succeed in the majors and was not
> expected to make progress through the minors as quickly as he did.
>
> At the time, given the two players and the Cubs situation, the trade
> was an average one, perhaps below average considering it was known
> Karchner has injury problems. It's only turned to awful because of
> Karchner's complete underperformance and Garland's success working in
> the Sox minor league system, not because of excessively poor
> evaluation on Lynch's part.
>
> For all we know, Garland would be the next Lance Dickson if he stayed
> in the Cubs organization. Credit has to be given to the Sox minor
> league coaches for his quick development.
Karchner has not performed below everyone's expectations by a lot. IMO,
he hasn't really disappointed at all. Karchner was a relatively low level
prospect who was obtained by the White Sox in the minor league portion of
the Rule V draft. He pitched competently for a while for the White Sox in
relief as have many relief pitchers. The small sample size factor assures
us of a good supply of competent relievers at any one time. And, as it
happened, the Sox didn't have a closer at the time so they threw Karchner
into the role -- much as Jim Bullinger closed for the Cubs in 1992
before spending all of 1993 back in the minors (BTW, Bullinger was
7 for 7 in save opportunities that year). On top of this, Karchner got hurt
and didn't pitch particularly well after that. As a non-roster invitee
to spring training, Matt Karchner would have been an excellent acquisition.
he was even worth something in trade. But reasonable expectations for
Karchner probably should have been lower than reasonable expectations
for Kent Bottenfield when the Cubs signed him and nobody was excited
about Bottenfield at all.
OTOH, Jon Garland was something like the #6 choice in the draft in 1996.
He was a strong armed kid out of high school who looked reasonably
durable (unlike Todd Noel of a year before). The Cubs had only had him
for about a year. He hadn't set the world on fire yet but then again
neither had Carlos Zambrano at a similar stage and a year later Zambrano
was pitching AAA. You trade a Garland for a Karchner only if you are
willing to admit that drafting Garland was a colossal error. As we see
now, drafting Garland hardly can be considered a colossal error.
Incidentally, trading Lance Dickson for Matt Karchner would also have
been a serious error.
Personally, I think the Karchner-Garland illustrates very clearly
MacPhail's basic mistake in setting up the Cub organization. Lynch
wasn't running the club but only certain aspects of it. It wasn't
Lynch who made the decision to draft Garland and so he didn't value
Garland as he would his own choice. So he sold him cheap. When
Dallas Green became Cub GM, he acquired Ryne Sandberg and various
other young Phillie prospects that he knew well but were undervalued
by the organization.
ray heitmann
Kyle
Name) wrote:
>In article <3977347...@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, msa...@students.uiuc.edu
>(Michael Sacks) wrote:
>
>> I expect that out of the 14 "starter" spots on the team (8 position, 5
>> starters, closer), that we already have Wood, Downs, Grace and
>> Girardi. In the next two to three years, I'd expect two of the many
>> Cubs pitching prospects to take over Tapani and Valdes spots, Nieves
>> to be our starting SS in 2002, Corey Patterson in CF or LF, perhaps R.
>> Brown, B. Brown or Matthews in LF, perhaps Zambrano or Farnsworth as a
>> closer, and even Kelton or Hinske taking over at 3rd eventually.
>>
>> Obviously, not all of these will happen, but it looks like we'll have
>> a home-grown team in the next few years more than any other time in
>> recent memort.
>
>With all due respects Mike, it always looks like we'll have more home
>grown guys in the future. A few years back, we were pencilling in
>guys like Robin Jennings, Brooks Kieschnik, Amaury Telemaco,
>Jeremi Gonzalez.
>
If you ask me, that's a failing of ourselves looking at them more than
a failure of prospects in general. Outsiders are rating our system
higher than ever, and I'm beginning to see how mediocre prospects like
them really were.
I still cringe every time I see some "2002 Cubs lineup" that has every
single top prospect panning out.
Kyle
The Jeff Huson of alt.sports.baseball.chicago-cubs
Michael J. Sacks
> I still cringe every time I see some "2002 Cubs lineup" that has every
> single top prospect panning out.
In 2002, I think we can count on Wood, Lieber, and at least two others
from our own system rounding out the starting rotation. Downs is close to
a lock, and there's plenty of young arms to go around. Closer is up for
grabs.
The only sure thing in 2002 is that Corey Patterson will be in the
outfield. I'd think that Nieves would be given the shortstop spot until
one of the brighter SS prospects beats him out, but that's only a guess.
I'd be very surprised if any other position prospects made an impact that
soon. Kelton or Hinske, Goldbach, any number of SS, and Choi could make
an impact by then, but I wouldn't count on it.
That's a sad state of affairs with our position players, but our minor
league pitching looks very good.
Mike Sacks
Al Yellon
True story:
When the Cubs were talking with the Yankees about Sosa, a list of players
was offered to Ed Lynch, from which he was to choose.
He told the Yankee people, Our people need 10 days to check these guys out.
That's a joke. Only it's not.
--
***********************************
AY-- Charter Member, DBFC
(http://www.dbfc.org)
***********************************
Cubbie Blue KoolAid
"Al Yellon" <tvdir...@REMOVETHISdbfc.org> wrote in message
>
> True story:
>
> When the Cubs were talking with the Yankees about Sosa, a list of players
> was offered to Ed Lynch, from which he was to choose.
>
> He told the Yankee people, Our people need 10 days to check these guys
out.
>
> That's a joke. Only it's not.
I thought MacPhail was in charge of the trade?
Kyle
<ronig...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Venkatesh Natarajan wrote:
>
>> How come the farm system hasn't produced crap? Here, I'm a little
>> leery of blaming Lynch --
>
>Cause if you wanna point fingers, try Jim Hendry...he's the head Cubs
>scout.
>
>Putting blame on the farm system is a different & perhaps longer
>arguement.
how much of our minor leagues, ecspecially AAA, were drafted by him?
RJ
}Venkatesh Natarajan wrote:
}
}> How come the farm system hasn't produced crap? Here, I'm a little
}> leery of blaming Lynch --
}
}Cause if you wanna point fingers, try Jim Hendry...he's the head Cubs
}scout.
}
}Putting blame on the farm system is a different & perhaps longer
}arguement.
I wonder who has been responsible for the farm system development
and hiring of scouts, Lynch or MacPhail? Given Andy's track record
with the Twins, I think he will give his underlings plenty of
rope. they can build a noose or a bridge.
I think the Cubs under MacPhail have been well-run, with Lynch
having to make mistakes as a first-time GM. He wasn't able to
outlive his last batch of mistakes.
I say let's give Andy through 2001.
RJ
JoshnMolly
>force.
>
>Chicago fans always need someone to blame, it seems, and in the Cubs case,
>it never starts with the players in the field.
>
They could end it all by naming Dave Bialas to a dual GM/Manager position
Josh
(Not in the DBFC)
Ernie Banks
McFail and his toady, Lynch. That's why the team sucks.
Al Yellon
<20000721010711...@ng-cu1.aol.com>...
Well! Now here's someone who's thinking straight!
Michael J. Sacks
> On Thu, 20 Jul 2000, Aztec Princess wrote:
>
> }Venkatesh Natarajan wrote:
> }
> }> How come the farm system hasn't produced crap? Here, I'm a little
> }> leery of blaming Lynch --
> }
> }Cause if you wanna point fingers, try Jim Hendry...he's the head Cubs
> }scout.
> }
> }Putting blame on the farm system is a different & perhaps longer
> }arguement.
>
> I wonder who has been responsible for the farm system development
> and hiring of scouts, Lynch or MacPhail?
I'm sure Larry Himes has a lot of input on both of these. I credit him,
and Lynch and MacPhail indirectly for keeping him on and giving him room
to work, as the most important reason why our minor league system is
looking its best in 10-15 years.
Mike Sacks
Michael J. Sacks
> >Now that Ed Lynch is gone, the anti-MacPhail posts are coming out in full
> >force.
> >
> >Chicago fans always need someone to blame, it seems, and in the Cubs case,
> >it never starts with the players in the field.
>
> They could end it all by naming Dave Bialas to a dual GM/Manager position
As long as Jeff Davenport gets his old job back.
Mike Sacks
DBFC charter member - Champaign/Urbana
David Geiser
100...@kristen.math.cmu.edu>,
Venkatesh Natarajan <v...@andrew.cmu.edu> wrote:
> What I do find interesting about MacPhail is that, of the deals
> Lynch made, the only one he seemed to object to was the Felix Heredia
> one??? He hated that deal, but not the Karchner one?
I thought that was bizarre too. I actually liked, and still
like, the Heredia trade.
David Geiser
User...@mail.utexas.edu (User Name) wrote:
> With all due respects Mike, it always looks like we'll have more home
> grown guys in the future. A few years back, we were pencilling in
> guys like Robin Jennings, Brooks Kieschnik, Amaury Telemaco,
> Jeremi Gonzalez.
I was never pencilling in Jennings and Kieschnick. I
haven't really felt good about a Cubs position prospect
in years. I must say that for the first time in a very
long while there is some reason for optimism (Choi, Goldbach,
Patterson), more than for any Cubs prospects in a long,
long time. I'm still not pencilling them in though.
As for the pitchers, you can never get too excited about
them, because bad things tend to happen to young pitchers.
There was good reason to be cautiously optimistic about
Telemaco and Gonzalez, as much as for the vast majority of
pitching prospects out there.
lynn even
to take some of the blame this year!
Dave Legler
"Michael J. Sacks" <msa...@students.uiuc.edu> writes:
>The only sure thing in 2002 is that Corey Patterson will be in the
>outfield. I'd think that Nieves would be given the shortstop spot until
>one of the brighter SS prospects beats him out, but that's only a guess.
>I'd be very surprised if any other position prospects made an impact that
>soon. Kelton or Hinske, Goldbach, any number of SS, and Choi could make
>an impact by then, but I wouldn't count on it.
>
One other player who's got a better than average chance to contribute by 2002
is Bobby Hill. He's already played at the very top of college ball and draws
walks at a very high rate. True, he's yet to sign, but he could move through
the system very quickly when he does.
Dave
DBFC~Charter Member