FanGraphs' Top 200 (8 Twins appear)

[Otto von Ballpark]

I guess that doesn't make much sense to me then. If they are both closers, why is Meyer 71 and Burdi not in the top 200? If anything Burdi will be a better closer as he has already excelled in that role and they have similar stuff there....Meyer probably throws the same 100 with a 90 mph slider.

 

The other thing that surprises me is how unanomous the Cubs are #1. Nobody is pointing out that they are highly weighted towards position players. Are they going to sign a Jon Lester every off-season? CJ Edwards is their top pitcher, #50 or so overall on most boards and their 5th best prospect. He only pitched 48 innings last year due to a shoulder issue. And Shwarber is a guy that was supposed to have an MLB ready bat and they sent him to low, then high A after college. He put up a .950 to 1.000 OPS but shouldn't he? And looking at the guy he doesn't project as a good corner OF and he can't DH there.

Pretty sure I have read about the Cubs system being position player heavy. Not sure what you want these lists to do about it.

 

You can weight pitchers more and produce your own list if you want, but aren't hitters generally considered more reliable as prospects anyway?

[PseudoSABR]

Prospect lists are trying to make good bets.  I'm not sure there's been any studies I believe in on the issue, but hitting prospects seem to me inherently less risky than pitching prospects.   Injury, longevity, and consistency seem more obtainable through hitting prospects, even if such an unbalanced approach as the Cubs' tends to fly against common sense, or may not inevitably work out.  As for the prospect lists, they seem less invested in how this list of prospects serves their current team, and far more interested in the future statistical production of the individual players regardless of team, or even how long it takes each one to get there.

[TheLeviathan]

Psuedo killed what I was going to say, I feel like I read an article not long ago analyzing the strategy of Epstein in Chicago.  His farm isn't hitting-heavy on accident, it is a deliberate strategy for precisely the reason Psuedo listed - high end hitting prospect have a far lower bust rate.  Or at least that's the premise driving their strategy.

 

The truth is, if you load up on a lot of prospects that don't bust, you have plenty of ammo to go out and acquire what you need.  If you worry about balance at the expense of overall talent, you're losing a considerable amount of value.  So if they're right that focusing on hitting will give them a stronger core of assets to rebuild with, then I'm not sure knocking down their farm ranking for balance is fair either.

 

I'm very curious to see how this works out for them.  The more high-end talent you have the better, you can sort out who plays where or who you keep later.  Having the financial means to sign the Jon Lesters of the world doesn't hurt either.

[jimmer]

In fact, only 28 players graded out at 55 or better. The Twins had six, Buxton (one of two prospects at 70; Sano and Berrios  (60); and Meyer, Gordon and Stewart (55). Only two other prospects in the AL Central graded higher than 55: Rodon (65) and Lindor (60). The rest of the ALC combined matched us with six prospects at 55 or better. None of those are Detroit prospects, whose highest ranked prospect was #132.

Exactly.  So we should absolutely be thrilled with the assessment.

[Otto von Ballpark]

In fact, only 28 players graded out at 55 or better. The Twins had six, Buxton (one of two prospects at 70; Sano and Berrios (60); and Meyer, Gordon and Stewart (55). Only two other prospects in the AL Central graded higher than 55: Rodon (65) and Lindor (60). The rest of the ALC combined matched us with six prospects at 55 or better. None of those are Detroit prospects, whose highest ranked prospect was #132.

I see 79 players with 55 or better FV, not 28. Still very good to have 6 of them.

[bird]

I see 79 players with 55 or better FV, not 28. Still very good to have 6 of them.

My bad, meant to say 28 prospects with grades of 60 or better. The Twns have three, the rest of the division has two. 

[Bob Sacamento]

 

    Bob,

    Arrietta is why I said "other than guys that popped up and had a good year". He has been in the league now for awhile and at 28 had a great year. I can't ignore the 4.48 career era.And john Manuel said schwarber might be the best bat in the draft, so getting to high a with that label as a college player seems par for me. If he is a catcher long term he is a huge prospect, but very few think he will. He only caught 20 of 56 games last year.Just seems we hear non stop concerns about buxtons health, sano's position, how tall berrios is, Meyers mechanics, kohls strikeouts. Yet nobody seems to say boo about the cubs players. Maybe I am off base, or maybe everyone really wants the cubs resurgence story that they don't scrutinize them in the same manner.

 

Arrieta was in the AL East, so he gets a bump for the move over to the NL Central, its not uncommon for 28 year old pitchers to turn the corner.  It's not that long ago he was a top prospect and since joining the Cubs and Chris Bosio he's been nothing short of spectacular.

  Schwarber only played 20 games behind the plate by design, he caught during the NCAA season and the organization didn't want to push too much, he's bat was just too good.  He skipped the AFL and went to Instructionals to work on his catching skills, look for him to catch full time in 2015 most likely in High A Myrtle Beach

No, that's just because of the circles you follow, as a Cubs fan constantly hear about whether Bryant can stay at 3B or move to OF, can Baez hit over .200 or strikeout less than 300 times, can Castro stay at SS, etc.  So we all deal with it

[tobi0040]

Bob,

 

Thanks for the Chicago perspective.

 

I would say that pitchers have turned a corner after several years. But is not the norm. Guys wih that profile got plenty of bounces. His babip dipped about 3 percent and 74 percent of his runners were stranded versus A career 68 percent. At the very least it is premature to say he projects as a top of the rotation guy until a longer track record of success appears

 

I get the strategy they are employing. Time will tell if it pans out. As noted, he has the payroll to fill a bit of the pitching gap. I also feel like the strategy could be short sided. The pressure for the cubs to win is higher. So if you look at schwarber versus kohl, most had kohl as a better prospect but do they have the patience? I think the issue is going to be this notion that they can just trade position players for pitchers. We will see I guess. Seems as though teams that have good young controllable pitchers treasure them as the opportunity cost is very high

[TheLeviathan]

Teams do treasure pitching prospects, but they also seem to have a higher bust rate than elite hitting prospects.  That's my perception, I'm not sure if anyone has studied that.  (I would imagine the Cubs did)

 

I think a note of caution is important - Epstein's strategy here is really interesting and pretty compelling, but not every strategy can work for every team.  Part of what the Cubs are banking on is that they have the finances to solve problems in FA and it seems as though most elite players that hit the market are pitchers and not hitters.  (Likely because hitters are seen as a more reliable long-term investment by their controlling clubs, so they never hit the market)

 

So some of the brilliance of what the Cubs are doing is a luxury not everyone is afforded, but that just means Epstein and Co. effectively recognized their organization's strengths and weaknesses and the idea model for their ascension.  It may not work, but the more I look at the strategy for that team - the more ideal it looks.

[Mike Sixel]

This is an amazing amount of work Kiley and team have done. It is a great resource, made even greater by its free price.

 

if you like prospect talk, and don't read Kiley and his chats every week, you should, imo.

[tobi0040]

I looked at the 2002 to 2011 drafts (10 years).  Categorized the players into heard of them (played in the league a bit as a qualifier) and stud.  Please note this was done very quickly, I didn't look up WAR for 100 players.  So I don't want to open the door to nit picking.  Just wanted to look generally at the notion that pitchers have much higher bust rates RE: Theo's strategy.

 

Here are the pitchers:

 

Pitchers      
2002 bullington gruler loewen everts greinke francis 
2003 sleeth stauffer maholm danks   
2004 verlander humber neimen rogers sowers bailey townsend diamond
2005 romero townsend pelfrey    
2006 hochevar reynolds lincoln morrow miller kershaw lincecum
2007 Price Moskos detwiler Weathers  Parker bumbarter 
2008 matusz crow     
2009 stras hobgood wheeler minor leake turner storen
2010 taillon pomeranz loux harvey whitsen  
2011 cole holtzen bauer bundy bradley

 

I tally 53 picks.  33 guys you have heard of, in the league a bit.  62.26%.  11 of those are studs (20.75%).  The studs are  Greinke, Verlander, Bailey, Kershaw, Lincecum, Price, Bumgarter, Stras, Wheeler, Harvey, and Cole.

 

Position players

 

2002 upton fielder moore meyer   
2003 delmon weeks lubanski harvey markakis stewart 
2004 bush nelson     
2005 upton gordon zimmerman bruan tulo maybin 
2006 longoria stubbs rowell    
2007 mouttakis vitters wieters laporta   
2008 beckam alvarez hosmer posey skipworth alonso beckam castro
2009 ackley tate sanchez    
2010 harper machado colon deshields choice  
2011 starling renden lindor baez soabgeberg

 

I tally, 46 picks.  Somewhere I missed a pick.   I get 26 guys you have heard of, been in the league (56.5%).  I tally 12 studs (26.09%%).  The studs are:

 

Fielder, Markakis (borderline), Justin Upton, Zimmerman, Braun, Tulo, Longoria, Weiters, Alvarez, Posey, Harper, and Machado.

 

Not really conclusive the point of peoples perceptions in my opinion.  Certainly not, lets avoid drafting pitchers and figure it out later.  

 

The other thing I noticed, it looks like Terry enjoys going after failed top pitchers.   I count five

of these pitchers we have traded for, signed, or at some point had interest.   Traded for Humber, signed Stauffer and Pelfrey.  Had interest in Maholm and Francis at one point.  Safe to say this is a strategy that has not paid off for us.

 

Completely agree with Levi that the drafting position players and signing pitchers is a luxury that Theo has that many others don't.

[TheLeviathan]

Good stuff tobi, I just bristle because when you compliment the Cubs for their strategy, people take it as a backhanded slap at the Twins.

 

The Cubs are able to do something the Twins can't, I wouldn't expect them to approach things the same way all the time.

[Mike Sixel]

I agree with Levi, I don't get how complimenting one team is ripping on another team. I also don't get all the angst over "only" being 2nd.......or whatever rank you put them.

[jimmer]

Good stuff tobi, I just bristle because when you compliment the Cubs for their strategy, people take it as a backhanded slap at the Twins.

 

The Cubs are able to do something the Twins can't, I wouldn't expect them to approach things the same way all the time.

was Tobi complimenting the Cubs for their strategy? Doesn't read that way to me. The way I read it was he prefers the Twins strategy and that the Cubs one is short-sighted because they are position player heavy for their top prospects.

[tobi0040]

was Tobi complimenting the Cubs for their strategy? Doesn't read that way to me. The way I read it was he prefers the Twins strategy and that the Cubs one is short-sighted because they are position player heavy for their top prospects.

 

I wasn't, actually questioning it because I don't think pitchers meet the perceptions of a much higher bust rates.  And I also think it all else being equal, teams treasure good, young, controllable pitchers because of the opportunity cost.  So this notion that they can flip position players for pitchers later even steven I think is off base.

 

The other thing, I think the Twins and Cubs are a coin flip.   I would personally rather have our system becuase of the high end pitchers and even our position players are at premium positions (top three are CF, 3B, and SS).  I am just taken back that the rankings are unanimous and the Cubs aren't being penalized at all for these things. 

[TheLeviathan]

was Tobi complimenting the Cubs for their strategy? Doesn't read that way to me. The way I read it was he prefers the Twins strategy and that the Cubs one is short-sighted because they are position player heavy for their top prospects.

 

No, I was though and more than a few times in the past that tip of the hat to the Cubs has been met with scorn.  

[jimmer]

No, I was though and more than a few times in the past that tip of the hat to the Cubs has been met with scorn.  

For me, it's pretty easy to see that both systems have some serious talent in the farm system and it makes it easy to compliment both without slighting either.

[TheLeviathan]

The other thing, I think the Twins and Cubs are a coin flip.   I would personally rather have our system becuase of the high end pitchers and even our position players are at premium positions (top three are CF, 3B, and SS).  I am just taken back that the rankings are unanimous and the Cubs aren't being penalized at all for these things. 

 

I still really don't understand why they should be penalized for these things.  They have more prospects at premium positions than we do, or at least as many.  Your argument seems to be one that the best system should have balance, but that's not how talent development works.

 

Lots of prospects fail, so how many are pitchers or outfielders or infielders should really be irrelevant.  Things aren't going to go perfectly so there is no point in trying to pretend to fill out a depth chart with them for the future.  What's relevant is how much talent there is, how high the ceilings are, and how close they are.

[Brock Beauchamp]

I'd take the Cubs system right now... But I'd take the Cubs system only if it came with the Cubs payroll ceiling as well. Epstein can go buy the pitchers he needs to succeed and he knows it. Ryan has flexibility but not that kind of flexibility.

 

And it's okay to say the Cubs system has more high ceiling players without slighting what Ryan and his scouts have done with the Twins. They're both very good systems.

[tobi0040]

I still really don't understand why they should be penalized for these things.  They have more prospects at premium positions than we do, or at least as many.  Your argument seems to be one that the best system should have balance, but that's not how talent development works.

 

Lots of prospects fail, so how many are pitchers or outfielders or infielders should really be irrelevant.  Things aren't going to go perfectly so there is no point in trying to pretend to fill out a depth chart with them for the future.  What's relevant is how much talent there is, how high the ceilings are, and how close they are.

 

I guess I view everything in the context of the opportunity cost. 

 

I would argue we have six high end players. 3 SP's (Meyer, Berrios, and Kohl), a CF, 3B/OF, and SS.  If you could pick six positions you could have really talented cheap players at that might be the ideal positions. 

 

The Cubs have about five high end guys.  The top four are position players.  Bryant is a 3B/1B.   Addison Russell SS.  Then I believe two corner OF's (I don't think Shwarber will catch).  Then their 5th guy is a pitcher.  

 

So if we have to go out into the free agent market and pluck some corner OF, 1B, etc. to complete our team and they have to go out and buy starting pitchers, CF, 3B, etc.  I think we would be in a better position. The fact that they are in a better position to do that should not influence the rankings at all.

[TheLeviathan]

I would argue we have six high end players. 3 SP's (Meyer, Berrios, and Kohl), a CF, 3B/OF, and SS.  If you could pick six positions you could have really talented cheap players at that might be the ideal positions. 

 

The Cubs have about five high end guys.  The top four are position players.  Bryant is a 3B/1B.   Addison Russell SS.  Then I believe two corner OF's (I don't think Shwarber will catch).  Then their 5th guy is a pitcher.  

 

 

They have a SS and a 3B just in the top three - that alone counts for a ton.  Our 3B and SS are 15 and 72.  They graduated Baez last year as a SS.  I'd argue they have you beat by your own reasoning right there.

[tobi0040]

They have a SS and a 3B just in the top three - that alone counts for a ton.  Our 3B and SS are 15 and 72.  They graduated Baez last year as a SS.  I'd argue they have you beat by your own reasoning right there.

 

Even if they can afford a Lester every off-season, are they going to be able to land one each year and is the 6-7 year, $150-200M contract to 29-31 year old starters a smart, sustainable approach?  Especially if you need 1-3 of them?

 

 

[Mike Sixel]

Why do they have to land one every year? Are the Twins going to have to sign two (assuming all three Twins' pitchers are that good)? Do you need to sign 5 number 1/2s?

 

The extremity of the argument being made seems a bit unrealistic to me.

[Otto von Ballpark]

I'd take the Cubs system right now... But I'd take the Cubs system only if it came with the Cubs payroll ceiling as well. Epstein can go buy the pitchers he needs to succeed and he knows it. Ryan has flexibility but not that kind of flexibility.

Not just payroll flexibility, but MLB talent too.  The Cubs already had a few decent/affordable arms before adding Lester -- it's not like they were the 2012-2013 Twins.  They weren't desperate for top pitching prospects, and probably wouldn't be for a couple more years regardless of finances.

[tobi0040]

Why do they have to land one every year? Are the Twins going to have to sign two (assuming all three Twins' pitchers are that good)? Do you need to sign 5 number 1/2s?

 

The extremity of the argument being made seems a bit unrealistic to me.

 

I think they need two more really good pitchers, in addition to Lester.  And they have a window where Lester could very well decline. 

 

I don't think Arrietta is for real. 

[TheLeviathan]

I think the point tobi is that at this point you're counting eggs as hatched and using that to fill in a hypothetical future depth chart and saying "See, I like this one better!"

 

But that opens up all sorts of issues, it's far more reasonable and comparable just to judge the talent and not worry about how many of any particular position there is.

[Otto von Ballpark]

Even if they can afford a Lester every off-season, are they going to be able to land one each year and is the 6-7 year, $150-200M contract to 29-31 year old starters a smart, sustainable approach?  Especially if you need 1-3 of them?

Pretty sure no team adds a Lester that often.  And the Cubs don't need to either.  They had Samardzja but chose to deal him, they added Hammel cheaply, already had Arrieta, Kyle Hendricks, Wada... Not aces, and room for improvement, but not some desperate dearth of SP either.

[jimmer]

Not just payroll flexibility, but MLB talent too.  The Cubs already had a few decent/affordable arms before adding Lester -- it's not like they were the 2012-2013 Twins.  They weren't desperate for top pitching prospects, and probably wouldn't be for a couple more years regardless of finances.

Hammels is staying low in the zone, Hendricks looks good (and is young).  Travis Wood is due to bounce back.  Arrieta could (and should) continue.

[tobi0040]

Pretty sure no team adds a Lester that often.  And the Cubs don't need to either.  They had Samardzja but chose to deal him, they added Hammel cheaply, already had Arrieta, Kyle Hendricks, Wada... Not aces, and room for improvement, but not some desperate dearth of SP either.

 

To be fair, the comments on this thread in response to the fact that they lack SP prospects was that they were just going to go out and sign them.

[tobi0040]

Hammels is staying low in the zone, Hendricks looks good (and is young).  Travis Wood is due to bounce back.  Arrieta could (and should) continue.

 

Arrietta accumulated 65% of his career WAR last year in what amounted to 27% of his innings. His career ERA is 4.48.  He is a question mark moving forward.

 

For reference, Phil Hughes put up only 35% of his WAR last year in 21% of his career innings.