Why do the Cubs Suck at Developing Position Players?

The inimitable Tuffy Rhodes

Pop quiz, hot shot: name a position player that came up through the Cubs' minor league system and went on to become a superstar.

For the sake of this discussion, let's leave Geovany Soto out of it. He had a great rookie year, but it's too early to tell if we can really rank him up there in superstar land—especially with the numbers he's putting up right now.

With the draft going down this week, here's what the Tribune had to say about the Cubs' farms system's ability to produce good position players:

Geovany Soto had a breakthrough season last year, earning National League Rookie of the Year honors, but has regressed in '09. Micah Hoffpauir is contributing in a limited role, while Jake Fox, recently called up after tearing up the Pacific Coast League, can't find his way into the Cubs' lineup. Ryan Theriot has been consistent at short but lacks the dominant offensive numbers to make him an impact player. At this point, it appears that the top position player drafted by the Cubs in the last decade was an obscure catcher selected in the 38th round of the 2002 draft. That catcher turned out to be Randy Wells, now one of the most dominating rookie pitchers in the National League.Those names are kind of a stretch since Wells isn't "proven" by any means, and neither is Fox or Hoffpauir.

I'm looking for superstars, not just contributors or everyday players. So let's take a look at what the Cubs have done in the past and see how bad they've really been.

The Candidates
We can't go back more than 30 years because I wasn't alive and going that far back bores me. So we'll start off at an arbitrary point of my own choosing: the Shawon Dunston era. He'll be our Jesus and our discussion will be limited exclusively to AD (Año Domini or After Dunston).

Was Dunston a superstar? In Chicago he certainly was, but a career .269 hitter (.296 OBP) with two All-Star appearances and no gold gloves (blame the Wizard of Oz for that) does not a superstar make.

I started by listing some recognizable names that came up through the Cubs system like Dwight Smith (fail), Damon Berryhill, Rich Amaral, Dave Martinez, Doug Dascenzo, Mark Grace, Joe Girardi, Doug Glanville, Eric Hinske, and Brendan Harris.

The only guy out of that bunch that deserves to be highlighted is Mark Grace. Not only because I have a man crush on the dude's swing, but because his numbers warrant it:


Gracey also won four gold gloves and was an All Star three times.

But what about Joe Girardi and Ryne Sandberg? Well, Joe was all right and a great fixture in Chicago, but he wasn't a superstar. And as for Ryno, he was actually drafted by the Phillies and got traded to the Cubs with Larry Bowa for Ivan DeJesus. So that's a no go.

Mark Grace...that's it.

Well, maybe there are some guys in the minor leagues that might develop into superstars.

Potential Candidates

The first name you'll hear in this argument is Josh Vitters, as you can see from this Tribune article that calls him "the 3rd basemen of the future." He's also been ranked as the Cubs top prospect by Baseball America. How's the 19-year old doing?



He's absolutely killing the ball right now, the only thing that's worrisome is his BB/K ratio. That's not very many walks, although the scouts are saying that's because he's not missing any balls right now. If the pitchers throw a strike, he's nailing it. But what about all those strikeouts then?

Then we have OF Tyler Colvin, the top pick of the 2007 draft. I think I've said all I need to say about him. Suffice to say I don't think he'll amount to superstar material.

The only other guy I would mention is Tony Thomas, I guy I started following right after he was drafted in 2007. At the time I saw him as a #1 or #2 hitter: he could hit, draw a walk, and had some speed. Lately his power seems to be coming around and he isn't walking as much. Still, he's about the most exciting thing going in the system in terms of position players besides Vitters:


This is what passes for "exciting" these days

Why the Cubs Suck

A friend of mine keeps trying to lay the blame on "The Cubs" or "Cubs management." But personnel has changed over the years so you can't really blame a specific group of people.

Can you blame Jim Hendry? He's been with the cubs since 1995 and was in a real position of leadership since 2001. Is this just a case of bad luck or a bad philosophy of developing/drafting players?

I think it comes down to philosophy. What's the Cubs' philosophy when it comes to drafting and developing players? Is there one? The Rangers pitchers are all about eliminating pitch counts and getting them to throw more. The A's have always been about plate discipline. The Braves are about producing studs—plain and simple.

The Cubs don't really have a direction. They're slowly creeping into the realm of the Yankees and Red Sox—large-market teams with too much money for their own good. Not enough of attention is being paid to the farm system, which was once so highly touted until those prospects flamed out (Hee Seop Choi, Corey Patterson, Bobby Hill, etc.).

They need some soul. Some direction. Some unified idea of what they want to do with position players to help them get better and become productive in the big leagues. Once they lay down a sensible plan, then they'll be able to give this another shot.

Until then I'll keep waiting for Josh Vitters and Tony Thomas to bring a little respectability to the farm.

MLB Draft: Cubs Mess Up Again

So the first round of the draft was yesterday and the Cubs took college OF Brett Jackson, who looks like he might be a decent center fielder. But "might" and "decent" isn't very exciting way to describe your first pick in the draft. Here's what MLB's Draft Tracker has on him:

It's not a great Draft class for college bats, particularly in the outfield, so one with the athleticism Jackson has is bound to be noticed. He runs well on both sides of the ball, has a decent approach at the plate and plays a good center field right now. Some may see him as a tweener who isn't a leadoff hitter or a No. 3 type. If he gets bigger he will have to move to a corner, where how much power he actually has becomes a bigger question. He's got more value if he can stay in center, and the team that takes him may be hoping he can stay put. Click here for the video.

So he isn't a leadoff guy and he isn't a power guy, although he might get some power if he gets "bigger." But then he won't be a centerfielder anymore. So basically this guy is a blank slate with great athleticism. Hmmm, sounds awfully similar to another recent top pick: Tyler Colvin. Here's what MLB's Draft Tracker had on him back in 2006:

He has a good hitting approach, though sometimes he's too aggressive. He hasn't shown much power, but there's room for growth there. He has enough speed to possibly stay in center.

Colvin's big problem, as everyone already knew before he signed, was his approach at the plate. Too many Ks and too few walks. In his minor-league career so far he's got 91 BB to 289 Ks, which is terrible. He's floundering at AA right now, which with those numbers is no surprise.

Why am I going aggro about this year's pick? Well, because Brett Jackson looks like Tyler Colvin Redux, and Tyler Colvin hasn't done jack. And quite frankly, it doesn't look like he will unless he pulls a Samardzija and starts to get better every time he gets promoted.

Have we not learned anything? Or are the Cubs just doomed to never develop another position player again? It doesn't matter if you think you develop or draft studs, the Cubs aren't going to do either with this pick.

Let's check out the stats from their final season in college:



Project Mr. Brett Jackson to a full season and he'll strike out around 180 times. For a guy with power that "might" develop, that's not good. Unless you're Barry Bonds or Adam Dunn, you're not allowed to strike out this much.

But that's not the main reason why I'm so upset about this pick. Take a look at who got picked RIGHT AFTER BRETT JACKSON: a kid named Tim Wheeler. Let's see what the Draft Tracker has to say about him:

Wheeler is a pretty advanced college hitter whose best assets are his ability to make contact and his speed. He should be the type who can hit at or near the top of a lineup with the potential to be a plus base-stealer. He uses his speed well in center and has the skills to stay there. Without much power, he probably won't be off the charts, but could be a very solid college draftee in June. Click here for the video.

So he's fast and can play center. Oh and he can hit at the top of the order. That's good to know. Not that many "maybes" in this guy's game. Let's see how his numbers compare:



Dear god! Why did we not pick this guy instead? Because he doesn't project to hit a ton of homeruns? He hit 18 to Brett Jackson's 8! Look at the young man's walks! His steals! His fielding percentage! ARGHHH!!!

What the hell is going on here?

I've been working on a post on how the Cubs suck at drafting/developing position players is so bad. So far in this year's draft they don't appear to be reversing the trend...

Note: Make sure to check out Baseball America's scouting report on all the first rounders. Jackson and Wheeler are at the bottom of the page.

Is Stephen Strasburg Better Than Mark Prior?

There has been a ton of hype surrounding this year's most likely top pick in the MLB draft: Stephen Strasburg. This guy's getting more hype than Mark Prior. With Prior, nobody was sure if he was even going to go first in the draft or not (he was the second pick because the Twins didn't want to spend too much money...they got Joe Mauer instead).

No such debate with this kid—the Nationals say they're going to pay whatever it takes to get him. That's how good they think he's going to be.

Anyway, let's take a look at both these kids' final seasons in college to see how they stack up against each other:



Right off the bat, a few things jump off the page: Prior and Strasburg absolutely dominated their leagues. Prior has less walks but Strasburg has more Ks and allows fewer hits. When it comes to the all-important WHIP (walks + hits / IP), Strasburg has the edge.

Let's take a look at what they did the season before the hype began:



Prior had an OK year while Strasburg flat-out dominated. I don't know that this "proves" anything about Strasburg being better than Prior, but it does show that he's been really really good for more than just one college season.

And let's not forget that Prior hasn't pitched in years...he may never pitch again for all we know. So you never know when it comes to this stuff.

So all the hype and money he's going to get is only going to prove itself as time goes on. For the sake of the Nationals and their fans, I sure hope they get their money's worth.

Your move, Boras.

Image from More Hardball