Baseball America Organizational Ratings

by jolietconvict on Mar 30, 2006 11:11 PM CST Comment 37 comments

Baseball America has released their organizational ratings and the Cubs have fallen for the 4th year in a row to 15th directly behind the White Sox .

Here's what they had to say about the Cubs.

2005 2004 2003 2002 2001
15. Chicago Cubs 10 7 3 1 2
Felix Pie takes up mantle as top prospect in a rapidly thinning organization.

The numbers under the years are the Cubs place in the rankings in those years. The ranking is disappointing to say the least. Granted some of that ranking has been turned in to Ramierez, Lee, and Pierre. However the Cubs have failed to restock the system. It's disheartening that not only were the Cubs not able to build on a playoff team in 2003, but the farm system is also in decline as well

This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of SB Nation or Al Yellon, managing editor (unless it's a FanPost posted by Al). FanPost opinions are valued expressions of opinion by passionate and knowledgeable baseball fans.

0 recs | Comment 37 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

What worries me...

Is that this will lead to another period like the early 90s, where once the team's current stars began to fade some there was little or no help to be found in the minor leagues. I hope the powers that be realize that the reason the team's been competitive the past three years is largely due to a productive minor league system.

I hope the crop in the lower levels leads to a revitalized system throughout.

"If it takes forever."

by JDay on Mar 30, 2006 11:43 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

Money Talks

Haven't the Cubs reduced their scouting budget over the last several years? Didn't they fire Mr. Lee as their Far East scout? The Cubs were once among the leaders at finding talent in Korea, but they don't seem to be interested in spending the money that it takes to find the talent now.

by FrankSereno on Mar 31, 2006 4:23 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I disagree about the system in decline...

I was pleasantly surprised by the number of prospects this spring who held their own.

Marshall really stepped up
Guzman looks good and just needs to stay healthy
all the young catchers were solid if unspectacular
Pie showed he has great skills if still a little raw
Sing and Dopirak did well in Lee's absence and were better than I was thinking they would be
Cedeno is going to start and be a good defensive player with some offensive potential
Murton is clearly a solid mlb outfielder already
Hill still has that great curveball and should be converted to relief where he would thrive
Ryu showed that his solid AA season was no fluke
Pagan came out of no where and has a nice speed/power combo plus can sub in any of the 3 OF positions
many others also showed a little like Koronka, Theriot, Aardsma, S Moore,

True the Cubs don't seem to have many of those absolute STUD players but they do have a ton of quality talent and much of it is starting to make it to the bigs. The injury bug for the top talent has been the biggest problem and so far that has not been an issue this year.

by CA Cub Fan on Mar 31, 2006 8:04 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

Well...

...Murton and Pagan aren't Cub products, so they don't count. Guzman's stock has clearly fallen precipitously over the past few seasons. Hill STILL doesn't have a second pitch, which is absurd. And so on. There are some talents, but no "can't miss" players that are cropping up all over the league. Read up on the Dodgers, the Twins, the A's, the Diamondbacks, the Brewers, the Braves, the Phillies, the Angels, etc. There are many MLB teams this year who will be counting on major production from home-grown talent, both on the mound and at the plate. The Cubs best young player was tutored in the Red Sox organization. Hendry held on to many of these guys too long, missing opportunities to use the farm for good veterans. And I don't think the Cubs as an organization have nearly the disciplined approach to a draft philosophy that the above mentioned teams have. Tenth place sounds about right to me.

by dr johnson on Mar 31, 2006 8:25 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

this is the problem

as optimistic as many cub fans are about youth, the truth is that most of these kids are not panning out as was hoped. even pie is something of a 1a prospect -- which isn't to say he can't work out, but he's hardly a conor jackson, a justin verlander, a delmon young or a casey kotchman.

by gaius marius on Mar 31, 2006 9:26 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

gaius

Agreed... there are no top10 or even 20 prospects in the system as it stands... Pawelek might top out at 25 or 30 since he's a high-schooler, and they're always iffy.

What? no love for Cecil's boy?

------------------------------------------------
Just North of Wrigley Field

by jameslcrockett on Mar 31, 2006 9:41 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

lol

if he his .270 with 30 bombs this year, the cardinals has best keep an eye on the rearview mirror.

by gaius marius on Mar 31, 2006 9:49 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Fielder

Anybody who's ever seen him (and we will plenty this year) knows what it's like to look at a real-life monster.

...but with Weeks and Fielder out of the Brewers' system, the Cubs should once again be the top system in the NL Central for next year as long as Patterson, Dopirak and Pawelek keep improving.

Guzman's health would also give a nice boost.

------------------------------------------------
Just North of Wrigley Field

by jameslcrockett on Mar 31, 2006 9:56 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Kotchman...

wasn't Kotchman much last year. There was some brief excitement, then lots of talk of dissapointment, of how he'd been overestimated, of how he hadn't made the adjustment to major league pitching. This year he's the great white hope, and the Angels' boy wonder from 2005, Dallas McPhearson, is in the doghouse (and heading for Salt Lake). Point being, there's ups and downs in each individual as they mature. It's very possible that the individuals in the Cubs' system will do much better this year, and the system could be judged better next year for it. Also, some of our better regarded prospects had injuries last year, which reduced their pretty-on-paper factors.

by helen on Mar 31, 2006 7:02 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

you're right...

...but it all counts. You pay your scouts to find guys like Murton and Pagan, and give up fringe prospects like Justin Jones, Francis Beltran and Brendan Harris (all Cubs products) to get a Murton. I give the scouting department even more credit for Murton than if they signed him since he was just a throw in, as we all remember.

I won't call this system a bust until Pie, Brian Dopirak, Eric Patterson, Mark Pawelek and Sean Gallagher bust. These are guys who can make major contributions if handled correctly, even if it's just as tradeable commodities.

The major-league club deserves the blame for the failures of Mark Prior, Kerry Wood, Corey Patterson, et al...

------------------------------------------------
Just North of Wrigley Field

by jameslcrockett on Mar 31, 2006 9:38 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Agreed...

...part of the purpose of the minor-league system is to raise bargaining chips in MLB trades. I just think the Cubs have held onto some chips long past expiration.

by dr johnson on Mar 31, 2006 9:44 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

dr

and you're definitely right about that.

For example, with interest in Korean baseball so high, I'm shocked the Cubs aren't trying to turn Jae Ryu into an actual major league, since I'm not convinced he'll ever be one himself.

Instead, they've traded Todd Wellemeyer, Jermaine Van Buren and Jon Leicester for nothing.

------------------------------------------------
Just North of Wrigley Field

by jameslcrockett on Mar 31, 2006 9:51 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

because

those guys arent worth anything

KSUCubbie

by ksucubbie on Mar 31, 2006 9:52 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

But...

...they were worth something at one point. Wellemeyer could have been dealt three years ago, when he still showed signs of brilliance. Van Buren was an impressive minor leaguer.

Are these guys to build trades for ARod around? Hardly. The point is that all of them were held onto too long (like Guzman and Hill are now), and THEN nothing was brought for them because their value had sunk too low. Hill should have been traded last season at the deadline and Guzman should have been dealt a long time ago.

The Cubs were in a position of strength in 2003 with three young studs fronting the rotation. When a team has three young guns, they can afford to fill in the back 4/5 with league average pitching and trade some blue chip AA/AAA talent (Guzman, et al.) on position players. That didn't happen, so now we're stuck with pitchers whom nobody wants and we traded away the guys who WERE good (Garland, Willis), let others go due to oversight (Sisco), and just let pitchers go to pasture at 25.

by dr johnson on Mar 31, 2006 9:58 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

you mean much

because if they weren't worth anything, teams wouldn't be trading for them.

When Matt Thornton can go from being a complete bust in every sense of the word to having the defending World Series Champs trading Joe Borchard for him, then getting nothing for a guy like Van Buren is unacceptable. The Cubs should have given him a shot to prove he's better than Wuertz or Novoa. In fact, when they traded him, Jose Macias still had a spot on the 40-man roster.

It's all about timing. They gave these guys away for nothing to keep 40-man spots open for minor-league catchers, who are easily replaceable.

If you hold on to Van Buren, and he succeeds, you get a lot more from Boston now when they're still unsure about Keith Foulke and Jonathan Papelbon in the ninth inning, or you keep him and add another arm to your bullpen instead of continuing on with Wuertz. If he doesn't throw well in the spring, you still end up with nothing for him.

------------------------------------------------
Just North of Wrigley Field

by jameslcrockett on Mar 31, 2006 10:10 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

one of hendry's great flaws as a gm

the Cubs have held onto some chips long past expiration

is that he's still a player development guy, and hasn't generally acknowledged when guys aren't working out. i thought the pierre trade was a real anomaly for him -- and forced by desperation. usually, fire sales are the only way he can find answers in the trade market. it'll be interesting to see (if he has a chance) whether or not he starts to empty the cubs minors of the chaff that seems to be accumulating there soon.

by gaius marius on Mar 31, 2006 9:52 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

but

he traded van buren at the height of his value.

unfortunately, he got just about nothing in return. maybe he was just used to getting crap in return lately. Like Bo Flowers.

Whatever happened to getting Karros and Grudz for a cancer? Or getting A-Ram for crappy prospects? I miss those days, when Hendry was fleecing the rest of baseball. Now, he just seems...distracted or something.

by tomas21 on Mar 31, 2006 4:16 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Or, maybe...

... other GMs are wary of him now because he did fleece them before.

by Al on Mar 31, 2006 5:25 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

after watching

hendry shell out three pitchers for one year of juan pierre, i respectfully doubt that the league quakes at the sight of jim hendry. :)

his "fleecings" have been fire sale acquisitions -- and bully to him for making them! -- but it's not brock-for-broglio material, imo.

by gaius marius on Mar 31, 2006 7:05 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

2 deals

lee for choi and ramirez for hill, aren't too far off the brock for broglio, as both those guys are perenniel all-stars or close to it, are potential mvp candidates in a given year, and were obtained for garbage.

if you can't accept that these deals were absolute coups, and that hendry was the only gm able to make them, then i don' want to hear you call people close-minded anymore.

by tomas21 on Apr 1, 2006 10:05 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

wadr

if he got nothing, what was the hurry? i mean, he could get nothing anytime.

"nothing" could be that this was the peak of van buren's value, i don't deny it.

but -- to my way of thinking -- when you have a bullpen that's going to include the likes of wuertz, koronka and/or novoa -- and you have a reliever who is assassinating the pcl two year running -- what do you really have to lose?

and if you have nothing to gain by trading him? the move makes very little sense to me.

by gaius marius on Mar 31, 2006 7:03 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

The guy that they got for him

is not awful... hes been successful in the lower minor leagues.. its not like he is crap.. He COULD be a successful major league baseball player but we dealt him for a young minor leaguer... what would you have gotten if you would have packaged Van Buren and Wellemeyer and Leiceister...probably nothing... not even a Pierre type.

Im okay with the deals made this offseason heres to hoping Matt does well with the Cubs organization

by cubsfan2883 on Mar 31, 2006 7:11 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

my comment

about van buren was tongue-in-cheek. i agree, there was no hurry--he needed an opening on the 40-man, but there were other ways to achieve that (like sending him as one of the pitchers for pierre).

by tomas21 on Apr 1, 2006 10:07 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

agreed on hill

he should have been dealt last year when people couldnt see past his curve and notice nothing else was there BUT i dont see why everyone is so high on van buren for gods sake he isnt on any major league roster and just because he is a favorite of you guys doenst mean he is any different than those of us who see talent in cedeno- who btw could still be a major trade chip if we decide to let him go- we arent the only club high on his potential

KSUCubbie

by ksucubbie on Mar 31, 2006 10:53 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

I'm only...

...high on Van Buren because he put up great numbers last year. The Sox have a loaded (and damned expensive) roster and that's probably why he won't begin the year in Boston. But I'm basing my attitude toward Jermaine on his performance not because of any personal feeling. Don't think Theo Epstien traded for Van Buren as a favor. He just might be very very useful before it's all through.

by dr johnson on Mar 31, 2006 11:02 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

Van Buren..

... put up good numbers in Triple-A. A lot of pitchers who do not succeed in the majors do this.

by Al on Mar 31, 2006 11:39 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

But...

...it's the only measure we have to work with, right? We use minor league stats all the time around here to make our opinions, don't we? Aren't people falling over themselves to defend Marshall and Cedeno based upon less? If he did well in AAA, then just maybe he could do well in the majors. This is not a stretch of imagination.

by dr johnson on Mar 31, 2006 12:11 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

but most pitchers

that succeed in the majors do.

now who's being negative? ;)

by gaius marius on Mar 31, 2006 12:28 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Touche!

... OK, valid point.

But that doesn't mean that EVERY pitcher who has good minor league numbers will succeed in the majors.

by Al on Mar 31, 2006 3:08 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

agreed

my view is, that with wuertz and eventually koronka or novoa in your pen, why give van buren away? i would have understood if he'd landed a double-a starter with reasonable prospect, of course. but he got a ptbnl. what's the motivation? so you can ink mabry? why not just cut wellemeyer -- which is what we all knew (i think) had to happen? wellemeyer is an awful pitcher; van buren burned up the pcl.

anyway, what's done is done, but i'll consider that an incompetent move even if van buren never amounts to anything.

by gaius marius on Mar 31, 2006 7:08 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Wilken

I think that part of the recent front office change, seeing John Stockstill depart the Cubs as director of scouting is an indication that perhaps things fell a bit after Hendry became GM. Tim Wilken comes over from the Devil Rays having seen something like his last 10 or 11 first round picks reach the majors. Thats an impressive track record (much of it with the Blue Jays).

My opinion on this ranking is mixed. In any situation, I'd like to be near or at the top to have a pipeline of young talent. However the Cubs have several young players in key positions (Murton - 25, Cedeno - 23, Ramirez - 27) along with young pitchers in Prior and Zambrano. Further there is some talent immediately available in Marshall, Guzman and Hill. Pie and Patterson seem to be the only real position prospects at the higher levels of the minor league system, however they are quality prospects.

I don't think that the pipeline is dry, however its not as plentiful as it once was. If there is going to be a dry period, I'm okay with it being now, when the Cubs are relatively young and set at many spots, with some real candidates available to fill some pitching holes.

DmL

by dmlichte on Mar 31, 2006 11:36 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

Van Buren

doesnt belong in our pen either

KSUCubbie

by ksucubbie on Mar 31, 2006 11:36 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

and wuertz or koronka do?

i think you say that as a statement of faith, ksu, because the cubs traded him and you want to defend the collective. his minor league performance in relief makes anything cedeno or marshall has done look utterly immaterial. if they belong here, certainly he would.

by gaius marius on Mar 31, 2006 12:34 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

wuertz does

and you know how i feel about wuertz- you have a personal thing agasint him because his stats are not bad at all- koronka idk why he is there i dont think he is talented in the least but you yourself were promoting him for a starters spot over marshall which seems crazy

KSUCubbie

by ksucubbie on Mar 31, 2006 2:58 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

not personal

he's just not good enough to be any part of a really good bullpen, is all.

by gaius marius on Mar 31, 2006 7:09 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

and koronka sucks

i think that's pretty clear -- journeyman material. bringing him up was, imo, all about protecting marshall and allowing him to develop more naturally... but we don't have to rehash all that, i hope. :)

by gaius marius on Mar 31, 2006 7:11 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Baseball America

What we all need to keep in mind about Baseball America is that they grade on Potential more than they do actual Major League Talent...For example the Twins have never been rated very highly as far as "potential" but have been very successful at raising homegrown pitchers and position players to keep their team the same..

Also we need to keep in mind that two people will sit down and look at the same guy and come up with two vastly different scouting reports. Baseball is a sport where Opportunity is just as important as talent.

by cubsfan2883 on Mar 31, 2006 5:28 PM CST reply actions 0 recs